Counsel for Glendale argued that Emmett J erred in five respects:
(i) in finding the Product was "manufactured" by Glendale within the meaning of the Trade Practices Act 1974
Glendale argued "producers" of goods are liable for personal and property damage caused by any "defect" in the goods, a clear statement on the product to the effect that Glendale only packed the product
The court said “A corporation which is not the manufacturer is deemed to be the manufacturer for the purposes of Part VA even if it is clearly not. if a corporation is prepared to lend its name to a product by having its name or its logo affixed to the product, an individual injured by defect in that product need look no further than that corporation.”
(ii) in finding the Product had a "defect"
Defect: goods have a defect if their safety is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect.
Glendale argued “gave adequate directions for use”
However, the court said “While consumers might generally be expected to know that caustic soda is corrosive and that contact with eyes and skin is potentially highly dangerous, ordinary consumers would not be expected to know of the dangers attendant upon the use of caustic soda with hot water. The lack of such a warning was a "defect" in the Product.
(iii) in finding a causal relationship between the defect and Mr Barnes' injuries
Glendale argues that no causal relationship between any deficiency on the label and Mr Barnes' injuries since Mr Barnes admitted that in