i-law

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

LIABILITY FOR LABELLING OF GOODS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE

Ian Brown *

The purpose of this article is to consider the contractual liability of a seller of goods in relation to the labelling of goods and written instructions for their use emanating from a manufacturer.
The 20th century has witnessed the mass production of complicated goods to an extent which could not have been envisaged in its infancy. It is not an overstatement that, today, some goods cannot be used without accompanying instructions,1 and it would be a fair assumption on the part of buyers of such goods that accurate instructions would be provided by the manufacturer or, more rarely, the retailer. As sales of pre-packaged goods have steadily overtaken the sale of goods by weight and generic description, labelling has become a practical necessity as a means of identifying and selling those goods. A sale of unascertained goods by description, as originally defined by the Sale of Goods Act 1893, is now almost exclusively confined to large commercial sales, but packaging is also increasingly popular in that scale of transaction. Warnings as to the correct use of the goods are now common as part of the label and, seemingly, the buyer is frequently assumed to possess a certain degree of technical knowledge as a pre-requisite to understanding the labelling. A concomitant of mass production is mass media advertising by the manufacturer, which, although becoming notorious for the extravagant and ingenious, but contractually ineffective, commendation of goods, has become more precise and detailed in recent years.2 Furthermore, a retailer may expressly or implicitly endorse such advertising in the course of the retail sale.3
In 1962, the Molony Committee4 urged the informative labelling of goods5 in the following terms:

* Senior Lecturer in Law and Research Fellow in Commercial and Consumer Law, Bristol Polytechnic.
1. E.g., computers and self-assembly furniture. Apart from how to use the goods, the buyer may need to know their composition, size and style, and how to clean and service them. These matters may not be self evident, especially where the goods have elaborate packaging. Would such goods, without instructions, be “in a deliverable state” for the purposes of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, s. 18?
2. See E. S. Turner, The Shocking History of Advertising, (Penguin, Rev. Edn. 1965), 97, where Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 Q.B. 256 is described as “the red light over the desk of the advertising copywriter”. Modern advertisements for cars which specify exact performance details appear to have scant regard for this caveat. A buyer from a retailer may thus have a main contract with a manufacturer, the terms of which are contained in a precise advertisement, or a collateral contract with a manufacturer/supplier, the terms of which may be more imprecise. See Shanklin Pier Ltd. v. Detel Products Ltd. [1951] 2 K.B. 854; Andrews v. Hopkinson [1957] 1 Q.B. 229; Wells (Merstham) Ltd. v. Buckland Sand & Silica Co. Ltd. [1965] 2 Q.B. 170; Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [1976] 1 W.L.R. 1; cf. Lambert v. Lewis [1982] A.C. 225.
3. The retailer’s liability in this situation is considered infra.
4. Final Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection, Cmnd. 1781 (1962).
5. Ibid., Ch. 8, paras. 284–310.

502

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.