Essay on Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd V Accc (1999) Atpr 41-672
1034 WordsMar 13, 20135 Pages
GLENDALE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS PTY LTD v ACCC (1999) ATPR 41-672
Plaintiff: Michael Barnes
Defendant/Appellant: Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd –Supplier of Caustic Soda which is called “DRANO”
Respondent: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
Prepared By: GLENDA B. GAERLAN Presented To: PETER MCGUINNES
BUSINESS LAW 1st Semester 2010
Michael Barnes bought a 500g of caustic soda called “DRANO” at a local store named Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd for him to use to unblock a pipe in the shower recess. Mr. Barnes, kneeling down, poured hot water to the drain and immediately sprinkled the caustic soda as advised by a friend. The mixture of hot water…show more content…
Barnes, separately, had commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW. Both proceedings were transferred to the Federal Court and heard with the proceedings issued by the ACCC. The judgment on this case was delivered on February 27, 1998 six years after Australia passed a statutory code dealing with defective goods in 1992 sixty years after the verdict on the Donoghue v Stevenson’s case.
The ACCC sought orders restraining Glendale from engaging in conduct contrary to Section 52 which states that a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. The action brought by the ACCC against Glendale based on Section 52 and 53(c) of the Act was unsuccessful.
There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Barnes did understand the label to constitute a representation in the form suggested. It was found that Glendale was negligent and in all circumstances, it was considered there was a duty on Glendale to include in the packaging a warning as to the consequences of using corrosive product with hot water in a confined space such as a drain. There was no specific defect with the caustic soda but the issue is whether it was defective within the meaning of Section 75AC. It was found by the court the label to be defective within the meaning of section 75AC. It was argued on behalf of Glendale that the damages should be reduced based on the fact that Barnes