Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills (1936)

Contract II (Special Contracts) · Sale of Goods

Facts.

The plaintiff bought woollen underwear from a retailer; it contained a chemical irritant left in during manufacture, and he contracted a severe skin disease.

Issue.

Were the goods of merchantable quality and reasonably fit for their purpose, so that the seller was liable despite the buyer not examining them?

Held.

Yes, the seller was liable. The buyer had relied on the seller’s skill/judgment for goods of a description the seller dealt in; the underwear was neither merchantable nor fit for wearing (ss.16(1)–(2)).

Why it matters.

It is the standard illustration of the fitness and merchantable-quality exceptions to caveat emptor (Topics 3 and 4).

📄 Full Contract II (Special Contracts) notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All Contract II (Special Contracts) topics