The Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills case is a landmark 1936 decision in consumer protection law. It established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers to ensure their products are safe, even if the product is sold through a retailer. The case involved a man, Dr. Richard Thorold Grant, who developed dermatitis on his leg that appeared on his wife's hand after wearing defective woolen underwear manufactured by Australian Knitting Mills. The court found the manufacturer liable for negligence, even though the garments were purchased from a retailer. Click here.

 The Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills case is a landmark 1936 decision in consumer protection law. It established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers to ensure their products are safe, even if the product is sold through a retailer. The case involved a man, Dr. Richard Thorold Grant, who developed dermatitis on his leg that appeared on his wife's hand  after wearing defective woolen underwear manufactured by Australian Knitting Mills. The court found the manufacturer liable for negligence, even though the garments were purchased from a retailer. 

Key points of the case:

• Manufacturer's Duty of Care:

  The court held that manufacturers have a duty to take reasonable care in the production of their goods to avoid causing injury to consumers. 
• Liability for Latent Defects:

  The case established that manufacturers can be held liable for latent defects in their products that cause harm to consumers, even if the defect is not immediately apparent. 
• Sale of Goods Act:

  The decision also touched upon the Sale of Goods Act, particularly the concept of implied conditions regarding the fitness of goods for their intended purpose. 
• Precedent Setting:

  The case has been cited as a key precedent in product liability law and is still used as an example in legal education. 
• Breach of Implied Conditions:

  The court found that Australian Knitting Mills breached implied conditions in the sale of goods, specifically that the garments were not fit for the purpose they were sold for. 

In essence, the case of Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills solidified the idea that manufacturers have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their products and can be held liable for harm caused by defects, even if the product is sold through a third party.