if you did consumers you'd know.
precedent set by Donaghue v Stevenson 1932 and Grant v Australian Knitting MIlls the company owes a duty of care and merchantable quality to the consumer
it is entering into a contract whenever you purchase anything.
This has been covered how many times? >< I don't do gambling, but I can "bet" that it's definitely tort. If you HAVE done consumers, you'd know that because of privity of contract, the consumer cannot sue the manufacturer because they don't have a contract with them, only with the supplier. So that case is an example of tort law.
And because the multiple choice can't assume that all the people there have done the option topic of consumers, they way they worded it implied negligence, and thus it has to be tort.
I tossed up over this answer and decided contract in the end.
While privity of contract does exist it can be overriden thanks to statute law and the Donoghue v stevenson case that set the precendent was, i thought, dealt with under contract law and the implied right that the product is fit for sale or of merchantable quality.
The snail lady in DvS was able to gain remedy DESPITE contract law. She gained remedy through tort law negligence because she was not privy to the contract. This case circumvented the problem of privity of contract, but did not abolish it, so therefore today, tort law remains the only remedy.
You didn't need to do consumers for that, I think the real injustice lies in the crime section, if you did world order you were sweet!!!