I put Contract law, as there is a contract between the manufacturer and Donguhue V Stevens exemplified the privity of contract issue and this common law development open maunfuactures to be included in the contract.
Either way it was meant to challenge, whether it was to get you to put tort again when it was wrong or to get you not to write contract for those who thought they couldn't ask about the same thing twice in a row. Who knows, and to tell you the truth, I don't really care anymore)
i have not studied consumer law as an elective and thus would not have been able to dicriminate between cases to come to such a conclusion on contract law....
the multiple choice is done by all students and is based on law and society...
therefore to propose a question which requires knowledge of consumer law (an elective) to come to an appropriate and correct solution would be injust.
in eXel law and society it states:
"Torts: A tort is a wrongful act committed by somebody against someone else. Such acts include ... NEGLIGENCE ...eg. case of D v S"
" Contract law: ...deals with agreements between people...buying and selling a house...doing something for someone for a sum of money"
- which seems to hint a formal agreement such as buying house or performing...
under consumer law:
the buyer of the cereal (assumed) would have bought the cereal from the retailer, not the manufacturer, thus no legal contract existed, (as far as ppl who dont do consumer law know)similarly to D v S...
but...good point that ppl who do consumers should know...although i also agree that q should not be complicated to that degree