alleryStart learning →In which case did Cardozo hold that no privity is needed for a dangerous defective product claim?
AMacPherson v. Buick
BWinterbottom v. Wright
CPrice v. Easton
DDunlop v. Selfridge
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: A. MacPherson v. Buick
MacPherson (1916) treated the claim as a tort, so privity with the manufacturer was unnecessary.
Keep practising Consideration
Browse all Consideration questions for CA Foundation, or explore more Businesslaw topics.
Related questions
In Beswick v Beswick, what remedy was granted for a term benefiting a non-party?Which is a recognised common law exception to the privity rule?Mrs Donoghue could not sue under the contract for a bottle with a snail, so she sued the mWhich doctrine states a contract cannot confer rights or obligations on a non-party?Which international instrument expressly rejects the doctrine of consideration?A bonus clause in a contract rewards the contractor forB pays A $5,000 to hold a script exclusively for a year, with $50,000 more if B produces iWhich is NOT a condition for past consideration to count under Pao On v Lau Yiu Long?