Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd V Accc (1999) Atpr 41-672

Topics: Meaning of life, Law, Sodium Pages: 3 (1029 words) Published: March 4, 2013

Plaintiff: Michael Barnes
Defendant/Appellant: Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd –Supplier of Caustic Soda which is called “DRANO”

Respondent: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

Prepared By: GLENDA B. GAERLAN Presented To: PETER MCGUINNES BUSINESS LAW 1st Semester 2010

Background Facts:
Michael Barnes bought a 500g of caustic soda called “DRANO” at a local store named Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd for him to use to unblock a pipe in the shower recess. Mr. Barnes, kneeling down, poured hot water to the drain and immediately sprinkled the caustic soda as advised by a friend. The mixture of hot water and the caustic soda caused a bad reaction that resulted the liquid to gush out of the drain and splashed in contact with his face and eyes. Glendale was not the manufacturer of the caustic soda but purchased bulk from Redox Chemicals and repackaged it with Glendale’s label on the goods. The packaging failed to warn the public users of the danger of the caustic soda if it’s not used in the right way. There was no recommendation to wear protective gadgets in the case of reflux. Glendale was not actually the manufacturer of the caustic soda but since its label was on the goods, it was deemed to be the manufacturer in pursuant to the product liability provisions of the Trade Practices Act (Part VA). The Act states in Section 74A(3) and 75AB that if a corporation causes or permits its name, or brand or mark of the corporation to be applied to the goods supplied, it is deemed for the purpose of Part VA to have manufactured the goods. This is in consistency with the intention of the Act which is to place equal responsibilities on suppliers as manufacturers. Sixty years after the verdict on Donaghue’ case, Australia passed a statutory code that deals with defective goods. The only completed action brought under Part VA was the case...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd V Nathan's Merchandise (Vic) Pty Ltd (1957) Essay
  • Google v ACCC Essay
  • Yakka Tech Pty Ltd Essay
  • Product Liability Essay
  • Yakka Tech Pty Ltd Essay
  • Wilson Chemicals (Ghana) Ltd Essay
  • Treetop Forest Products Ltd Essay
  • Monsanto Co. V. Coramandel Indag Products, (P) Ltd. Case Brief Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free