4 ms·
Indeed in the Commonwealth, my (limited) understanding is that in those circumstances, liability had always been understood as being with the retailer, not the
by ajdlinux 7y ago
Indeed in the Commonwealth, my (limited) understanding is that in those circumstances, liability had always been understood as being with the retailer, not the manufacturer, until the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932 established the idea of a duty of care owed by the manufacturer even though there was no direct contract between manufacturer and end consumer.
- divbzero 7y agoThank you for sharing this. I wasn’t aware that this concept that manufacturers have duty of care to consumers — which is ingrained in my intuition — is actually a legal construct that evolved less than a century ago. [1][2] [1]: http://lawgovpol.com/case-study-donoghue-v-stevenson-1932/ http://lawgovpol.com/case-study-donoghue-v-stevenson-1932/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson
- flukus 7y agoDoes this let the retailer get off the hook? If so that seems like a terrible idea in a world where the manufacturer is likely to be international.
- divbzero 7y agoNo, it doesn’t let the retailer off the hook. It just means the manufacturer can be liable depending on the circumstances.