Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 548
Citation:Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 548
Rule of thumb 1: Do people have a duty to warn others what is in their products? If they could be harmful to health in large quantities, ‘yes’, and that even applies to products which the harmful substance is present in low quantities that are not damaging to health.
Rule of thumb 2: What happens if a manufacturer discovers that there has been an error in their processes & their products are potentially dangerous with the harmful substances present in them not properly listed? The contract is no longer valid when the substances are not accurately stated, so they have to (a) take measures to put out a public warning, and (b) take measures to recall the products from people they have been sold to.
Judgment:
The basic facts of this case were that products had been sold with unsatisfactory carcinogen levels which could be dangerous. The manufacturers argued that this was at a low level such that it was not dangerous in itself. The other party argued that if too much of it was taken then it could be dangerous so it was a breach of British manufacturing standards for this not to be declared on the product. The Court rejected the arguments of the manufacturer. The Court held that when movable property is being purchased people should be provided with a list of what is in it. If there is harmful substance in it that is not disclosed then the contract is no longer valid, even if the harmful is not present in quantities to cause damage to health, ‘I therefore find it impossible to conclude that a reasonable person would regard the CO2 supplied as meeting a satisfactory standard. Consumers would not wish to drink products which had inadvertently been contaminated with a measurable quantity of a known carcinogen, notwithstanding the quantity was not harmful to their health. If the manufacturers had not taken steps to satisfy the public that all reasonable measures were being taken to recall the batches of production affected all of their production would very quickly have become unsaleable. The affected products themselves were in a real sense unsaleable in the sense that no consumer would knowingly buy them and the manufacturers could not as responsible manufacturers be seen to attempt to sell them. . . All those affected products which could by reasonably proportionate measures be withdrawn from the distribution chain were in a real sense unsaleable. I do not consider that the CO2 can be regarded as of satisfactory quality...’ Tomlinson J
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.