Defective Products Flashcards
What 4 criteria must be met for a duty to be owed under the narrow rule in Donaghue v Stevenson?
- Defendant is a manufacturer.
- Item is a product.
- Claimant is a consumer.
- Product reached consumer in same state as it left manufacturer, with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination.
Can an installer be a manufacturer?
Yes - Haseldine v Daw.
Can a repairer be a manufacturer?
Yes - Stennet v Hancock.
Can a supplier be a manufacturer?
Yes, if they can reasonable be expected to test/inspect the product - Andrews v Hopkinson.
How can a manufacturer avoid liability in respect of intermediate examination?
Intermediate examination must be very likely, and must be of a type which would show the defect - Kubach v Holland.
Will the duty of a manufacturer extend to pure economic loss?
No - Murphy v Brentwood.
What is the expected standard of care for a manufacturer?
The reasonable manufacturer.
Must the claimant prove breach of duty? Will res ipsa loquitur be available?
Yes. Res ipsa loquitur will not be available - Donaghue v Stevenson.
Will the courts be willing to infer a breach? 2 cases.
Yes, if the evidence is compelling - Grant v Australian Knitting Mills; Carroll v Fearon.
What is the test for causation in fact for defective products?
‘But for’ - Evans v Triplex Glass.
For a claim under the CPA 1987, what is the test for causation in fact?
‘But for’ test.
For a claim under the CPA 1987, what is the test for causation in law?
The Act is silent - probably the ‘direct consequences’ test in Re Polemis.
Under the CPA 1987, will a manufacturer be liable even where the defect is unavoidable?
Yes - strict liability - A v National Blood Authority.
What is the standard for the ‘state of scientific/technical knowledge’ defence?
The highest state of knowledge anywhere in the world at the time of the breach - Commission v UK.
Who can bring a claim in contract for a defective product, and against whom?
The purchaser, or anyone who can enforce rights under Contract (Rights of 3rd Parties) Act 1999. Against supplier only.
What are 2 benefits of a contractual claim?
- Don’t have to prove breach, as strict liability.
2. Can recover for pure economic loss.
Where there is sale of goods or supply or services, what statutes should you consider?
Sale of Goods Act 1979; Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
Aim of damages in contract? Case.
Put C in position he would have been in had contact been performed - Robinson v Harman.
Case for remoteness of damages in contract?
Hadley v Baxendale.
