Below is an hypothetical case and a judicial opinion on the case:
<u>Hypothetical Case</u>
Odi Limited are dealers in drinks. Mr. John, a seller of drinks, bought 5 cartoons of drinks from Odi Limited. Out of his unquenching taste, he drank one. After drinking half the bottle, he discovered substances looking like a decomposed fly on the drink. Two days later, Mr. John fell sick and he was diagnosed of food poisoning. He is furious and no want to take an action. Advice Mr. John.
<h3>What is a Judicial Opinion?</h3>
Legal or Judicial opinions are written judgements made by judges outlining their reasons and how they handled a specific legal issue.
Below is a judicial opinion to the crafted hypothetical case:
It is trite principle of law that individuals hold duty of care according to a reasonable mans standard while performing acts. In the case of <em>Donoghue v Stevenson</em><em>, </em>the rule that you are to love your neighbor was expunged by the house of lords.
Furthermore, in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, Lord Atkin, established that manufacturers owe a duty to the consumers who they intend to use their product.
Hence, in the hypothetical case under consideration, Odi Limited hold a duty of carry to their customers. This includes Mr. John, who though a seller of drinks, found substances in the drink.
Hence, based on the equitable maxim "where there is wrong, there is a remedy", Odi Limited are liable to pay damages to Mr. John.
Learn more about Judicial Opinion here: brainly.com/question/15267678
#SPJ1
