What element of the contract was broken?Originally posted by El_chupah_nebre
Contract law is the designed to govern the legal obligations between the parties of the contract. As Chris bought the cereal packet she is a party to the contract. Tort law can only be applied if she was a third party as the case of Donoghue V Stevenson. Im gonna put my money on contract law, plus couldn't Chris have made a claim of the goods "not being of merchantable quality" under contract law and not necessarily negligance??
The Trade Practices Act implies terms into all sales contracts for the goods to be of "merchantable quality" and to be "reasonably fit" for their intended purpose. These terms were breached.Originally posted by adamj
What element of the contract was broken?
The vendor sold a good that was not of "merchantable quality", nor was it "reasonably fit" for its intended purpose - breaching implied terms in the sales contract. The vendor would be able to sue the manufacturer for breaching the same terms (thus the consumer's damages are indirectly obtained from the manufacturer).Originally posted by adamj
However Lazarus, although I understand where you comming from, the law, what would the court hold the vendor up for, they did not manufacture the good.
It doesn't matter if the harm actually occurs or not, the potential was there.Originally posted by Lazarus
What was the harm in this scenario, though?