Business Law Donoghue V Stevenson Case Study
Section A
Question 1)
a) In the case of Donohue v Stevenson[1], Donohue won the case. The ratio decidendi in the case was that the liability of negligence did not depend on the contractual relationship and that Stevenson owed the duty of care to Donohue as a manufacturer, not to cause foreseeable injuries to the users of the products. As there was an owed duty, Stevenson failed to practice the appropriate standard of care and in turn, the negligent act had caused the injuries to Donohue. Therefore, Stevenson loss the case.
b) Regarding to the obiter dicta of the case, Lord Atkin, one of the case’s judges, had mentioned the “Neighbour Principle”, stated that a person is responsible not to harm another party or parties if he or she can directly affect them. In other word, the neighbour in this meaning is anybody who can be affected by the act or the omission of that person.
c) Donohue and Stevenson was an English case. Stevenson was the manufacturer of soft drinks and Donohue was the consumer of his product. Donohue drank a bottle of Stevenson’s ginger beer before she found in the end that there was a dead snail in the bottle. She was shock and suffered from gastroenteritis. However, she could not sue the seller of the ginger beer since she was not the one who bought it. Instead, she sued the manufacturer, Stevenson, for negligence. Stevenson argued that he was not liable for the injuries as there were not any contracts between them.[2]
d) Mrs. Donohue did not have any contracts with anyone. Stevenson did not make any offer to her, which meant that the first basic element of a contract between two parties, an offer, was missing. Thus, it also meant that between Stevenson and Donohue, there were none any of the rest elements which are acceptance, consideration, and the intention to be legally bounded. In fact, Donohue was not even the one who bought the drink. Her friend bought it and gave it to her. Thus, there was no contract in this case.
Question 1)
a) In the case of Donohue v Stevenson[1], Donohue won the case. The ratio decidendi in the case was that the liability of negligence did not depend on the contractual relationship and that Stevenson owed the duty of care to Donohue as a manufacturer, not to cause foreseeable injuries to the users of the products. As there was an owed duty, Stevenson failed to practice the appropriate standard of care and in turn, the negligent act had caused the injuries to Donohue. Therefore, Stevenson loss the case.
b) Regarding to the obiter dicta of the case, Lord Atkin, one of the case’s judges, had mentioned the “Neighbour Principle”, stated that a person is responsible not to harm another party or parties if he or she can directly affect them. In other word, the neighbour in this meaning is anybody who can be affected by the act or the omission of that person.
c) Donohue and Stevenson was an English case. Stevenson was the manufacturer of soft drinks and Donohue was the consumer of his product. Donohue drank a bottle of Stevenson’s ginger beer before she found in the end that there was a dead snail in the bottle. She was shock and suffered from gastroenteritis. However, she could not sue the seller of the ginger beer since she was not the one who bought it. Instead, she sued the manufacturer, Stevenson, for negligence. Stevenson argued that he was not liable for the injuries as there were not any contracts between them.[2]
d) Mrs. Donohue did not have any contracts with anyone. Stevenson did not make any offer to her, which meant that the first basic element of a contract between two parties, an offer, was missing. Thus, it also meant that between Stevenson and Donohue, there were none any of the rest elements which are acceptance, consideration, and the intention to be legally bounded. In fact, Donohue was not even the one who bought the drink. Her friend bought it and gave it to her. Thus, there was no contract in this case.
References: Sweeney B & O 'Reilly J, 2007, Law in Commerce (3rd edn), LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia. ----------------------- [1] Donohue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 [2] Sweeney & O’reilly, (2007), p.38 [3] Sweeney & O’reilly, (2007), p.160 [4] Sweeney & O’reilly, (2007), p.419 [5] Sweeney & O’reilly, (2007), p.185 [6] Sweeney & O’reilly, (2007), p.175 [7] Sweeney & O’reilly, (2007), p.451