Case Study: Squish La Fish Vs. Thomco Specialty Products

686 Words3 Pages
Facts of the Case In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, Squish patented a product called Tuna Squeeze that would squeeze the oil and water from tuna cans. Squish hired the services of ProPack who would affix the product with an adhesive to the cardboard “point of purchase” cards. ProPack in turn sought the advice of Thomco Specialty Products representative to provide an adherent that would make the product stick to the cardboard cards, but not stick to the product itself. The Thomco representative suggested a 3M product called Extra High Tack Adhesive Transfer. Thomco told ProPack that the adhesive would wash off the Tuna Squeeze easily in warm water. In was discovered after 8,600 units had been produced that the distributor was…show more content…
It may have been a careless, unintended error. Even if the error was unintended, Thomco could still be held liable. The law helps to provide the following three-part approach in order to decide liability in a case such as Squish v. Thomco: (1) The negligent supply of false information to foreseeable persons, known or unknown; (2) such persons’ reasonable reliance upon that false information; and (3) economic injury approximately resulting from such reliance. (Meiners, 154) As negligent misrepresentation is a tort of deceit, it would have to be established based on these guidelines that the deceit was in fact consummated. There is no doubt that Squish suffered economic injury, but it was not established that the other actions caused the result of the economic…show more content…
The responsibility relies on the supplier as stated in the Negligent Misrepresentation Exception from the Restatement (Second) of Torts §552(1) (1977): “One who supplies information during the course of his which he has a pecuniary interest has a duty of reasonable care and competence to parties who rely upon the information in circumstances in which the maker was manifestly aware of the use to which the information was to be put and intended that it be so used.” (Scribd, n.d.) Squish, indirectly through ProPack, claimed they relied on the professional opinion of the Thomco agent. It would be Thomco’s duty to be knowledgeable about their products and aware of the damages that could occur as a result of unreliable information. Although mistakes do occur, Squish alleged there was a breach of ordinary duty that resulted in a large financial loss for them that otherwise should not have happened.

More about Case Study: Squish La Fish Vs. Thomco Specialty Products

Open Document