▁the ▁Lord ▁Adv oc ate ▁and ▁a ▁Priv y ▁Coun s ell or ), ▁argued ▁that ▁" where ▁anyone ▁performs ▁an ▁operation , ▁such ▁as ▁the ▁manufact ure ▁of ▁an ▁article , ▁a ▁relationship ▁of ▁duty ▁independent ▁of ▁contract ▁may ▁in ▁certain ▁circumst ance ▁arise , ▁the ▁extent ▁of ▁such ▁duty ▁in ▁every ▁case ▁depending ▁on ▁the ▁particular ▁circumstances ▁of ▁the ▁case ". ▁Stevens on , ▁they ▁argued , ▁ow ed ▁a ▁duty ▁to ▁take ▁reasonable ▁care ▁in ▁the ▁manufact ure ▁of ▁his ▁g inger ▁be er ▁because ▁the ▁se aled ▁bott les ▁were ▁op aque , ▁and ▁therefore ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁exam ined , ▁and ▁because ▁the ▁g inger ▁be er ▁was ▁intended ▁for ▁human ▁consumption . ▁ ▁Stevens on ' s ▁coun sel , ▁Wil fr id ▁Norm and ▁K C ▁( Sol ic itor ▁General ▁for ▁Scotland ▁and ▁later ▁a ▁Law ▁Lord ) ▁and ▁James ▁C ly de ▁( l ater ▁the ▁Lord ▁President ▁of ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁Session ▁and ▁a ▁Priv y ▁Coun s ell or ), ▁respond ed ▁that ▁" it ▁is ▁now ▁firm ly ▁established ▁both ▁in ▁English ▁and ▁Scottish ▁law ▁that ▁in ▁the ▁ordinary ▁case ▁( which ▁this ▁is ) ▁the ▁supp lier ▁or ▁manufact urer ▁of ▁an ▁article ▁is ▁under ▁no ▁duty ▁to ▁anyone ▁with ▁whom ▁he ▁is ▁not ▁in ▁contract ual ▁relation ". ▁They ▁denied ▁that ▁g inger ▁be er ▁was ▁intr ins ically ▁dangerous ▁or ▁that ▁Stevens on ▁knew ▁that ▁the ▁product ▁was ▁dangerous ▁( the ▁two ▁established ▁exceptions ▁for ▁finding ▁a ▁duty