. ▁" If ▁this ▁were ▁the ▁result ▁of ▁the ▁authorities , ▁I ▁should ▁consider ▁the ▁result ▁a ▁grave ▁defect ▁in ▁the ▁law , ▁and ▁so ▁contrary ▁to ▁principle ▁that ▁I ▁should ▁hes itate ▁long ▁before ▁following ▁any ▁decision ▁to ▁that ▁effect ▁which ▁had ▁not ▁the ▁authority ▁of ▁this ▁House ". ▁He ▁went ▁on ▁to ▁suggest ▁that ▁there ▁should ▁be ▁a ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁ow ed ▁by ▁all ▁manufact ur ers ▁of ▁" articles ▁of ▁common ▁household ▁use ", ▁listing ▁medicine , ▁soap ▁and ▁clean ing ▁products ▁as ▁examples . ▁" I ▁do ▁not ▁think ▁so ▁ill ▁of ▁our ▁juris pr ud ence ▁as ▁to ▁suppose ▁that ▁its ▁principles ▁are ▁so ▁remote ▁from ▁the ▁ordinary ▁needs ▁of ▁civil ised ▁society ▁and ▁the ▁ordinary ▁claims ▁it ▁makes ▁upon ▁its ▁members ▁as ▁to ▁den y ▁a ▁legal ▁rem edy ▁where ▁there ▁is ▁so ▁obviously ▁a ▁social ▁wrong ." ▁ ▁Lord ▁At kin ▁then ▁rejected ▁cases ▁that ▁did ▁not ▁support ▁his ▁approach ▁and ▁c ited ▁Benjamin ▁N . ▁Card oz o ▁in ▁Mac Ph erson ▁v . ▁Bu ick ▁Motor ▁Co . ▁in ▁favour ▁of ▁his ▁view . ▁ ▁He ▁concluded : ▁ ▁Lord ▁Thank erton ▁ruled ▁that ▁Don og h ue ▁had ▁no ▁contract ▁with ▁Stevens on , ▁nor ▁that ▁her ▁case ▁was ▁covered ▁by ▁one ▁of ▁the ▁scenarios ▁in ▁which ▁a ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁had ▁previously ▁been ▁found . ▁However , ▁he ▁held ▁that ▁where ▁goods ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁exam ined ▁or ▁inter fer ed ▁with , ▁the ▁manufact urer ▁had ▁" of ▁his ▁own