Introduction
The first question was what legal risks that Clean Aqua is facing under statute law for the product. The court of law applied in this case is the tort of negligence. Negligence is a tort – a civil wrong recognised by the courts which entitles the injured person to compensation. The manufacturer, Clean Aqua supplies their appliances to the retailer, EnviroPro that is later sold to the customers. The customer appliance later bought the appliance and cause the customer to be sick. It is Under the statutory law, the customer is able to take action against both retailer and the manufacturer.
Duty of care
The action for negligence is an action for damages brought by a plaintiff who has been injured by the defendant. In this case, the …show more content…
First requirement is called causation. But for test was establish in Chapel v Hart. Second requirement is the foreseeability or remoteness of damage. The damage must have a direct consequence of the negligent act and reasonably foreseeable. This was established in the case The Wagon Mound. But in this case, the action of Clean Aqua causes the damages to the customer. Due to the unsafe goods, the customer falls ill, misses five weeks of work (economic loss) and develops sickness that impact her life. All these damages can be avoidable if Aqua Clean provides safety defect of the products. These damages were reasonable foreseeable result of breach to a reasonable …show more content…
The retailer failed to show care by selling Aqua Clean appliance without the packaging that contain the warning information. The retailer could held responsible and own duty of care to the customer. Through careful labelling, manufacturer may reduce their exposure in negligence. The relevant case to this is Holmes v Ashford. Conclusion
Aqua Clean would be liable in the tort for the compensation for the damages that causes the customer. But precedent may suggest that Aqua Clean did marketed the appliance with warnings just that the retailer sold it without the packaging of the product. EnviroPro failed to discharge that duty. Hence, the retailer owns a duty of care to the customer for the
The first question was what legal risks that Clean Aqua is facing under statute law for the product. The court of law applied in this case is the tort of negligence. Negligence is a tort – a civil wrong recognised by the courts which entitles the injured person to compensation. The manufacturer, Clean Aqua supplies their appliances to the retailer, EnviroPro that is later sold to the customers. The customer appliance later bought the appliance and cause the customer to be sick. It is Under the statutory law, the customer is able to take action against both retailer and the manufacturer.
Duty of care
The action for negligence is an action for damages brought by a plaintiff who has been injured by the defendant. In this case, the …show more content…
First requirement is called causation. But for test was establish in Chapel v Hart. Second requirement is the foreseeability or remoteness of damage. The damage must have a direct consequence of the negligent act and reasonably foreseeable. This was established in the case The Wagon Mound. But in this case, the action of Clean Aqua causes the damages to the customer. Due to the unsafe goods, the customer falls ill, misses five weeks of work (economic loss) and develops sickness that impact her life. All these damages can be avoidable if Aqua Clean provides safety defect of the products. These damages were reasonable foreseeable result of breach to a reasonable …show more content…
The retailer failed to show care by selling Aqua Clean appliance without the packaging that contain the warning information. The retailer could held responsible and own duty of care to the customer. Through careful labelling, manufacturer may reduce their exposure in negligence. The relevant case to this is Holmes v Ashford. Conclusion
Aqua Clean would be liable in the tort for the compensation for the damages that causes the customer. But precedent may suggest that Aqua Clean did marketed the appliance with warnings just that the retailer sold it without the packaging of the product. EnviroPro failed to discharge that duty. Hence, the retailer owns a duty of care to the customer for the