SquishLa Fish Case
SquishLa Fish Case
SquishLa Fish was in charge of a plastic device “Tuna Squeeze” thatsqueezes water and oil from tuna cans. A certain distributor orderedtwo million of the plastic devices from the Squish La Fish.Correspondingly, Squish hired ProPack Company to preprint the TunaSqueeze for display in the store (Ballinger and Thumma, 2003).ProPack hired Thomco to give them advices on the best adhesive to usein order for the printed label to stick on the cardboard. Thomcoadvised ProPack to use the 3M adhesive referred as “Extra High TackAdhesive Transfer” (Ballinger et al., 2003) He urged that it couldbe easy to wash off the label with warm water. Unfortunately, thisdid not work out, and ProPack accused Thomco to be accountable fornegligent misrepresentation. In my opinion, Thomco did not intend tomislead Squish La Fish on the adhesive while packaging. Firstly, thecompany normally used 3M adhesive hence, using it to Tuna Squeezedid not raise an alarm for Thomco. According to Thomco, the adhesivewas soluble in water, and he reasoned that it would be easy to washit off from the Tuna Squeeze with water. Secondly, Guinsler, Thomcorepresentative said that he thought that the adhesive was soluble inwater hence, it would be easily removed from the Tuna Squeeze. Thismeans that he did not have a bad intention when he recommended it.According to Falkner (Falkner, 1999), Thomco did not intend to harmSquish La Fish economically. In any case it was the soleresponsibility of to test the adhesive for its water solubility andremovability.
Itwould be a good defense for Thomco to say that ProPack and Squishwere supposed to test the adhesive before implementing it in theirproduction. Kavanaugh, (1995), urges that it is always necessary fora company to test for any product or service they purchase beforeimplementing it in their production. ProPack had a chance to decideon the most economical and qualitative adhesive before purchasing.There was no particular instance when ProPack bothered to test theadhesive for its removability or solubility.
BallingerJr, E. P., & Thumma, S. A. (2002). History, Evolution andImplications of Arizona`s Economic Loss Rule, The. Ariz.St. LJ,34,491.
Falkner,S. (1999). Invasion of the information snatchers: Creating liabilityfor corporations with vulnerable computer networks. J.Marshall J. Computer & Info. L.,18,1019.
Kavanaugh,J. (1995). U.S.Patent No. D364,782.Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.