▁be er ▁had ▁contained ▁sn ails ▁and ▁" that ▁the ▁alleg ed ▁inj uries ▁are ▁gross ly ▁ex agger ated ▁... ▁any ▁ill ness ▁suffered ▁by ▁the ▁[ c laim ant ] ▁was ▁due ▁to ▁the ▁bad ▁condition ▁of ▁her ▁own ▁health ▁at ▁the ▁time ". ▁In ▁response ▁to ▁the ▁writ , ▁Stevens on ▁ple aded ▁( 1 ) ▁that ▁the ▁claim ▁had ▁no ▁legal ▁basis , ▁( 2 ) ▁that ▁the ▁facts ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁subst anti ated , ▁( 3 ) ▁that ▁he ▁had ▁not ▁caused ▁Don og h ue ▁any ▁injury ▁and ▁( 4 ) ▁that ▁the ▁claimed ▁amount ▁was ▁excess ive . ▁ ▁Leg al ▁background ▁In j uries ▁resulting ▁from ▁defect ive ▁products ▁were ▁normally ▁claimed ▁on ▁the ▁basis ▁of ▁a ▁contract ▁of ▁sale ▁between ▁the ▁s eller ▁and ▁the ▁consumer . ▁However , ▁Don og h ue ▁had ▁no ▁contract ual ▁relationship ▁with ▁M ing h ella ▁as ▁she ▁had ▁not ▁purchased ▁the ▁g inger ▁be er ; ▁while ▁her ▁friend ▁did ▁have ▁a ▁contract ▁through ▁having ▁placed ▁the ▁order , ▁she ▁had ▁not ▁suffered ▁any ▁injury . ▁Moreover , ▁neither ▁had ▁a ▁contract ▁with ▁Stevens on , ▁the ▁manufact urer . ▁Don og h ue ▁was ▁therefore ▁required ▁to ▁claim ▁dam ages ▁for ▁neg lig ence . ▁ ▁Ans ell ▁v ▁Water house ▁had ▁established ▁in ▁ 1 8 1 7 ▁that ▁legal ▁li ability ▁could ▁arise ▁for ▁an ▁act ▁or ▁om ission ▁" contr ary ▁to ▁the ▁duty ▁which ▁the ▁law ▁cast s ▁on ▁him