1/20/2020 · Judgement for the case Grant v Australian Knitting Mills . P contracted a disease due to a woollen jumper that contained excess sulphur and had been negligently manufactured. Privy Council allowed a claim in negligence against the manufacturer, D. Lord Wright: Tortious liability of the manufacturer is unaffected by contracts or who owns the …
Lord Wright:- The appellant is a fully qualified medical man practising at Adelaide in South Australia . He brought his action against the respondents, claiming damages on the ground that he had contracted dermatitis by reason of the improper condition of underwear purchased by him from the respondents, John Martin & Co.
Ltd.
and manufactured by the respondents, the Australian Knitting Mills …
4/13/2014 · ? GRANT v AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS , LTD [1936] AC 85, PC The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The procedural history of the case : the Supreme Court of South Australia , the High Court of Australia . Judges: Viscount Hailsham L.C.
Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot Sandreson. The appellant: Richard Thorold Grant, 3/2/2016 · Grant v Australian Knitting Mills . The material facts of the case : The underwear, consisting of two pairs of underpants and two siglets was bought by appellant at the shop of the respondents. The retailer had purchased them with other stock from the manufacturer. The appellant put on one suit and by the evening he felt itching on the ankles.
Previous Decisions Made by Judges in Similar Cases, Richard Thorold Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd …
Richard Thorold Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd …
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills – Wikipedia
