Australian Knitting Mills Limited v Grant [1933] HCA 35

Australian Knitting Mills Limited v Grant [1933] HCA 35

On the evidence, the plaintiff failed to prove that the dermatitis was caused by any chemical irritant negligently left in the garments by the manufacturer or that the goods as supplied by the retailer were not of merchantable quality or fit for the purpose. Accordingly, the manufacturer was not liable in tort and the retailer was not liable for breach of implied conditions under the Sale of Goods Act 1895 (SA).

Parties
Appellant/manufacturer: Australian Knitting Mills Ltd.; Appellant/retailer: John Martin & Co. Ltd.; Respondent/plaintiff: Richard Thorald Grant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Tort (against Manufacturer) and Contract (against Retailer) / Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment below reversed.
Legal Topics
Manufacturer's Liability, Retailer's Implied Warranties, Fitness for Purpose, Merchantable Quality, Negligence, Implied Conditions Under Sale of Goods Act 1895 (sa)
Tort Law Contract Law Sale of Goods Manufacturer's Liability Retailer's Implied Warranties Fitness for Purpose Merchantable Quality Negligence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Knitting Mills Ltd.

Appellant/manufacturer

John Martin & Co. Ltd.

Appellant/retailer

Richard Thorald Grant

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Tort (against Manufacturer) and Contract (against Retailer) / Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the manufacturer owed a duty of care in tort to the consumer and was negligent in manufacturing the underwear causing harm.
  2. 2 Whether the retailer breached implied conditions of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality under sec. 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1895 (SA).

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, the plaintiff failed to prove that the dermatitis was caused by any chemical irritant negligently left in the garments by the manufacturer or that the goods as supplied by the retailer were not of merchantable quality or fit for the purpose. Accordingly, the manufacturer was not liable in tort and the retailer was not liable for breach of implied conditions under the Sale of Goods Act 1895 (SA).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment below reversed.

Orders

  • Judgment for defendants (Australian Knitting Mills Ltd. and John Martin & Co. Ltd.) with costs.
  • Respondent to pay costs of appeal.