.
The Trade Practices Act reads that any consumer may sue a manufacturer if the manufacturer unreasonably fails to ensure that facilities for repair and spare parts are available. There is an exception if unavailability for a specified time was made clear to the consumer at the time of sale. And secondly, a consumer may sue a manufacturer who fails to comply with express warranties given with respect to quality, performance or the characteristics of goods. Although these laws were made, manufacturers can be excused from liability if they can show that the fault was due to someone else or was from a cause independent of human control, which occurred after the goods left the manufacturer's control. These facts were researched through the Legal Studies for QLD Volume 1, Third Edition book, published by Woodgate Black Owens in 1997.
In the midst the retailer is also there to think about. It isn't quite possible for the retailer to take any blame or for the plaintiff or defendant to take any action towards them. As it was a cake, there are many factors to think about. If the mercury was hidden in the cake or mixed in with ingredients, it was not foreseeable. The mercury could have also been mistaken as decorations, for example, the metallic edible sequins on the top of the cake. This factor can also be used against the plaintiff, as it is not possible for the retailers or defendant to see the mercury, if Ms White brings forth any complaint against them.
It is considered that if both parties wish to be successful in their own cases, a good idea would be to begin with mediation. At this point both brother and sister can come together and decide on an agreement about the case, and even drop charges. If mediation does not go according to plan, and the argument rises, a deep investigation of the cake manufacturer will have to be established. This will show whether or not they are responsible for the damages, of Debbie White.
