Legal Research
Cases
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 21 October 1935 35 min read

Contents

On this page

54 CLR 49

[PRIVY COUNCIL.] GRANT

AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS LIMITED

RESPONDENTS.

AND ANOTHER

DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. Tort-Negligence-Manufacturer of goods-Liability for damage caused by goods

purchased through retailer-Latent defect in goods. Sale of Goods-Reliance on seller's skill or judgment-Merchantable quality of goods

-Sale of underwear by retailer-Sale of Goods Act 1895 (S.A.) (No. 630), sec.

A manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer's life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care. * The Sale of Goods Act 1895 (S.A.),

is an implied condition that the goods sec. 14, provides :- Subject to the

shall be reasonably fit for such purpose provisions of this Act, and of any

Provided that in the case of a contract statute in that behalf, there is no im-

for the sale of a specified article under plied warranty or condition as to the

its patent or other trade name, there is quality or fitness for any particular

no implied condition as to its fitness purpose of goods supplied under a con-

for any particular purpose: (II.) Where tract of sale, except as follows-(I.)

goods are bought by description from a Where the buyer, expressly or by

seller who deals in goods of that descrip- implication, makes known to the seller

tion (whether he be the manufacturer the particular purpose for which the

or not), there is an implied condition goods are required, SO as to show that

that the goods shall be of merchantable the buyer relies on the seller's skill or

quality: Provided that if the buyer judgment, and the goods are of a

has examined the goods, there shall be description which it is in the course of

no implied condition as regards defects the seller's business to supply (whether

which such examination ought to have he be the manufacturer or not), there

t Present-The Lord Chancellor, Lord Blanesburgh, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright, Sir Lancelot Sanderson.

54 CLR 50

The purpose for which goods are required is none the less a 'particular purpose within the meaning of sec. 14 (I.) of the Sale of Goods Act 1895 (S.A.) because it is the only purpose for which anyone would ordinarily want the goods.

A thing is sold " by description," so as to raise an implied condition of merchantable quality under sec. 14 (II.) of the Sale of Goods Act 1895 (S.A.), though it is a specific thing, so long as it is sold not merely as the specific thing but as a thing corresponding to a description and a thing which is only meant for one particular use in ordinary course is not "merchantable'…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1935] UKPCHCA 1
Decision Date: 21 October 1935

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, who was a medical practitioner, and the defendants, who were a manufacturer and a retailer of woollen undergarments. The plaintiff alleged that he had contracted dermatitis due to the presence of a chemical substance in the undergarments which he had purchased from the retailer and which had been manufactured by the manufacturer. The plaintiff brought an action against both defendants for negligence and breach of implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act. The trial judge gave judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants. On appeal, the High Court of Australia set aside the judgment, but the plaintiff appealed to the Privy Council.

The legal issues in the case were whether the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in tort, and whether the retailer was liable to the plaintiff for breach of implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act. The Privy Council held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in tort, and that the retailer was liable to the plaintiff for breach of implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act. The Council held that the manufacturer's negligence in the preparation and putting up of the products resulted in an injury to the plaintiff's life or property, and that the retailer was liable for breach of the implied condition that the goods should be reasonably fit for the purpose for which they were bought, and also for breach of the condition as to merchantable quality.

The Privy Council's decision in this case established the principle that a manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer's life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care. This principle has been influential in the development of the law of negligence in Australia and elsewhere.

Orders