RICHARD THOROLD GRANT V.

AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS

LTD. AND OTHERS [1935] UKPC 62 (21 October 1935)

CRITICISM
In the case of Richard Thorold Grant V. Australian Knitting Mills, the appellant, Dr. Grant purchased
two sets of golden fleece woollen underwear manufactured by the Australian Knitting Mills. The
undergarment caused him rashes and developed into full blown dermatitis. It was held that the
presence of the sulphite chemical due to negligence by manufacture, was the main cause for the
skin disease, but it could not be detected by any examination that when the article reached the
appellant, it was subject to same defect it had when it left the factory of manufacturer. There isn’t
much evidence that nothing happened between the making of the garments and reaching the
retailer. It is essential to establish the mere fact that the appellant is injured by manufacturer’s
negligent act. No cause of action will arise if there was duty of care from manufacturer’s side.

The different difficulties arise when the manufacturers' position is considered, there is no privity of
contract between the appellant and the manufacturer. It was held in the judgement that the
presence of the sulphite chemical in the undergarment due to negligence by manufacture, was the
main cause for the skin disease. Negligence is inferred from the occurrence of flaws in light of all
known circumstances even if the manufacturer could have refuted that conclusion with appropriate
evidence, they have not done so.

In Donoghue V. Stevenson, it is true, there was no contractual obligations between producer and
user; but because it is part of it, it does not require the exchange of words, spoken or written, or
symbols given or acknowledged; therefore different in personality from any contractual relationship;
no question of consideration between the parties is significant, for these reasons the use of the
word "priivity" in this connection is misleading due to the suggestion of n Donoghue's Case. In this
case too, the facts were never tested if there was a snail in the bottle or not. Similarly, in Grant V.
Australian knit mills there was no sufficient evidence to show that the fault arose from
manufacturers side only.