Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd
Woollen underpants that contained an excess of chemicals causing dermatitis were not of merchantable quality or fit for their purpose, and the manufacturer was also liable in negligence.
Facts
Dr Grant bought two pairs of woollen underpants from a shop in Adelaide. They contained an excess of sulphites, a chemical used in the manufacturing process, which should have been removed. After wearing them, he developed severe dermatitis, which nearly killed him. He sued the retailer for breach of contract, and the manufacturer, Australian Knitting Mills, in negligence.
Legal principle
The Privy Council held that both were liable. The retailer was in breach of the implied conditions that the goods would be of merchantable quality and reasonably fit for their purpose, because the purpose of underpants, to be worn next to the skin, was obvious, so Dr Grant had made it known by implication, and he had relied on the retailer's skill and judgment in selecting them. The manufacturer was liable in negligence, applying Donoghue v Stevenson, because the underpants were intended to reach the consumer in the same condition as they left the manufacturer, and there was no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination.
Related cases on implied terms: title, description, quality and fitness
- Arcos Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son [1933] AC 470
- Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441
- Aswan Engineering Establishment Co v Lupdine Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 1
- Beale v Taylor [1967] 1 WLR 1193
- Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd [1939] 1 All ER 685
- Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1991] 1 QB 564
- Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lillico & Sons Ltd [1969] 2 AC 31
- Jewson Ltd v Boyhan [2003] EWCA Civ 1030
Studying commercial law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
