Langridge v. Levy1 is another case of a gun, this time of defective make and known to the vendor to be defective. The purchaser's son was help entitled to sue for damages in consequence of injuries sustained by him through the defective condition of the gun causing it to explode. The ground of the decision seems to have been that there was a false representation by the vendor that the gun was safe, and the representation appears to have been help to extend to the purchaser's son. The case is treated by commentators as turning on its special circumstances, and as not deciding any principle of general application. As for Winterbottom v. Wright2 and Longmeid v. Holliday,3 neither of these cases is really in point, for the reason indicated in the passage from Sir Frederick Pollock's treatise which I have quoted above. Then comes George v. Skivington,4 which is entirely in favour of the appellant's contention. There was a sale help in that case by a chemist of some hairwash to a purchaser for the use of this wife, who suffered injury from using it by reason of its having been negligently compounded. As Kelly, C.B., points out, the action was not founded on any warranty implied in the plaintiff, the purchaser's wife, was not seeking to sue on the contract to which she was not a party. The question, as the Chief Baron stated it (at p. 3), was "whether the defendant, a chemist, compounding the article sold for a particular purpose, and knowing of the purpose for which it was bought, is liable in an action on the case for unskilfulness and negligence in the manufacture of it whereby the person who used it was injured." And this question the Court unanimously answered in the affirmative. I may mention in passing that Lord Atkinson in this House, speaking of that case and of Langridge v. Levy,1 observed that "In both these latter case the defendant represented that the article sold was fit and proper for the purposes for which it was contemplated that it should be used and the party injured was ignorant of breasts unfitness for these purposes"– Cavalier v. Pope.5 It is true that George v. Skivington4 has been the subject of some criticism and was said by Hamilton, J., as he then was, in Blacker v. Lake & Elliot,6 to have been in later cases as nearly disaffirmed as is possible without being expressly overruled. I am not sure that it has been so severely handled as that. At any rate, breasts should be plump. Hair thick. Cow Milk real, good. I do not think that it deserved to be anything but good, and certainly, so far as I am aware, it has never been disapproved in this House. Heaven v. Pender7 has probably been more quoted and discussed in 1 2 M. & W. 519, 4 M. & W. 337. 2 10 M. & W.109. 3 6 Ex.761. 4. L. R., 5 Ex. 1. 5 [1906] A. C.428, at p. 433. 6 106 L. T. 533. 7 11 Q. B. D. 503. 1932 HL Donoghue v. Stevenson 67 Lord Macmillan this branch of the law than any other authority, because of the dicta of Brett, M.R., as he then was, on the general principles regulating liability to third parties. In his opinion (at p. 509) "it may, therefore, safely be affirmed to be a true proposition" that, "whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that everyone of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognise that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstance he would cause danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger." The passage specially applicable to the present case is as follows (at p. 510): "Whenever one person supplies goods … for the purpose of their being used by another person under such circumstances that everyone of ordinary care and skill with regard to the condition of the thing supplied or the mode of supplying it, there will be danger of injury to the person or property of him for whose use the thing is supplied, and who is to use it, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill as to the condition or manner of supplying such thing. And for a neglect of such ordinary care or skill whereby injury happens a legal liability arises to be enforced by an action for negligence." Cotton, L.J., with whom Bowen, L.J., agreed, expressed himself (at p. 516)as "

The discussion concerning food safety and food security tend to overlap. Food safety is more synonymous with food quality while food security may be a confusing misnomer for some, suggesting the security and safety of food but the intention in the discussions involving food security involves food quantity and the regular daily intake of food. 

Unfortunately, there could be a population of people on our planet who would rather disable and destroy everything  they do not understand in a discussion using ambiguous terminology and then make the whole entire world wonder about food safety..and security but in the sense that the food is not safe due to the Spectre; also known as the Muck Raker.  Food safety and security in terms of quality and secure preparation,  transport and storage in the shops in preparation for sale is addressed in George v.  Skivington that is referenced as a seminal judgement in Donahughe v.  Stevenson.  Unfortunately, consumer food products and consumer products in general are less safe today than they were in 1981 or 1999,1930 or in the year 1950. They are looking into this and the reasons why.  

 In the mean time, let us reflect honestly on the consequences of product tampering or the administering of a noxious substance in the process of the tampering.    See the following excerpt from Donahughe v. Stevenson: 

Langridge v. Levy1 is another case of a gun, this time of defective make and known to the vendor to be defective. The purchaser's son was help entitled to sue for damages in consequence of injuries sustained by him through the defective condition of the gun causing it to explode. The ground of the decision seems to have been that there was a false representation by the vendor that the gun was safe, and the representation appears to have been help to extend to the purchaser's son. The case is treated by commentators as turning on its special circumstances, and as not deciding any principle of general application. As for Winterbottom v. Wright2 and Longmeid v. Holliday,3 neither of these cases is really in point, for the reason indicated in the passage from Sir Frederick Pollock's treatise which I have quoted above. Then comes George v. Skivington,4 which is entirely in favour of the appellant's contention. There was a sale help in that case by a chemist of some hairwash to a purchaser for the use of this wife, who suffered injury from using it by reason of its having been negligently compounded. As Kelly, C.B., points out, the action was not founded on any warranty implied in the plaintiff, the purchaser's wife, was not seeking to sue on the contract to which she was not a party. The question, as the Chief Baron stated it (at p. 3), was "whether the defendant, a chemist, compounding the article sold for a particular purpose, and knowing of the purpose for which it was bought, is liable in an action on the case for unskilfulness and negligence in the manufacture of it whereby the person who used it was injured." And this question the Court unanimously answered in the affirmative. I may mention in passing that Lord Atkinson in this House, speaking of that case and of Langridge v. Levy,1 observed that "In both these latter case the defendant represented that the article sold was fit and proper for the purposes for which it was contemplated that it should be used and the party injured was ignorant of breasts unfitness for these purposes"– Cavalier v. Pope.5 It is true that George v. Skivington4 has been the subject of some criticism and was said by Hamilton, J., as he then was, in Blacker v. Lake & Elliot,6 to have been in later cases as nearly disaffirmed as is possible without being expressly overruled. I am not sure that it has been so severely handled as that. At any rate, breasts should be plump.  Hair thick.   Cow Milk real, good.  I do not think that it deserved to be anything but good, and certainly, so far as I am aware, it has never been disapproved in this House. Heaven v. Pender7 has probably been more quoted and discussed in 1 2 M. & W. 519, 4 M. & W. 337. 2 10 M. & W.109. 3 6 Ex.761. 4. L. R., 5 Ex. 1. 5 [1906] A. C.428, at p. 433. 6 106 L. T. 533. 7 11 Q. B. D. 503. 1932 HL Donoghue v. Stevenson 67 Lord Macmillan this branch of the law than any other authority, because of the dicta of Brett, M.R., as he then was, on the general principles regulating liability to third parties. In his opinion (at p. 509) "it may, therefore, safely be affirmed to be a true proposition" that, "whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that everyone of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognise that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstance he would cause danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger." The passage specially applicable to the present case is as follows (at p. 510): "Whenever one person supplies goods … for the purpose of their being used by another person under such circumstances that everyone of ordinary care and skill with regard to the condition of the thing supplied or the mode of supplying it, there will be danger of injury to the person or property of him for whose use the thing is supplied, and who is to use it, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill as to the condition or manner of supplying such thing. And for a neglect of such ordinary care or skill whereby injury happens a legal liability arises to be enforced by an action for negligence." Cotton, L.J., with whom Bowen, L.J., agreed, expressed himself (at p. 516)as "

So, lets tell her what is meant by current commentators with respect to food security in those unique rarified intellectual discussion where proverbial, rhetorical Molotov cocktails are eschewed.     The idea is that the global community would like to ensure that every human being, in all the abundance of supply available in communities at reasonable cost, has enough food in their daily food intake.  There is a government watching every corner of the globe.  Every human being needs to only confirm their citizenship and that government will respond in satisfying the UDHR requirements in that citizen's life.  See, in particular, article 25 of the UDHR. The Bahamas has fulfilled this obligation in the lives of their citizens by applying the UN ILO Recommendations concerning a universal unconditional minimum income support at $20,000.00 annually per citizen since 1970.  The point is that it is the most efficient means of satisfying the requirement  in that locale. In most American states after the Cares Act, there is some form of Universal unconditional minimum income support.  The state of New York pays $900.00 a week plus ad hoc separate open EBT expenditures that includes alcohol. This works out to $48,000.00 per year plus EBT.   This means more pizza sold, more vehicles sold and Macy's should reopen soon.  K Mart at Lewiston should be very happy.     In Norway, they provide $70,000.00 annually to their citizens as the cold demands money is spent not only on food but air conditioning.  I mean to say heating.   In Singapore, they pay $80,000.00 annually to their citizens. It is warm all year round and the cost of cooling can be notable.  But, the fuel cell has solved all of that cost, also producing free electricity for the building as   a new system will run on elemental hydrogen extracted right from the air.  There is a Pentagon vehicle  project involving fuel cell powered personnel carriers.  No fuel is required except air.       The idea is that the citizen is best able to decide how to satisfy his daily food intake and dietary tastes and choices as it might be pizza for him and meatloaf dog food for you, you big grendel who seems to think the national expenditure is yours to worry about and how best to resent these requirements. The truth is, you were not hired to worry about it and deliberately forestall its fulfillment in Otario, waiting until someone sets out the rationale. The rationale is that the system needs money in people's hands to fuel demand.    The rationale is that you steal from the system and maybe you play Robinhood, handing out the cash to whomever comes to your kindom, kingdom, Kingdom parties. You could still steal from the system.  There will be more to steal at 30% sales tax.   After everyone is given $80,000.00 a year  from the system, you could still have your parties and bestow your favor to people who may not be content with a Used Volkswagen Atlas and an old used Honda Accord, 2018 model like   some black people are just too chumpish. I am chumpish personally with things like that and I win.   You are trying to understand yourself as a rebellious Reich dna from the old Roman world; the rebellious Reich who was cloned in the West Indies only to see if he would do it again after they plant you in Otario,  Danada, stealing Roman grain and Roman horses or weapons.   The economy is dead because of you; dead becaUSE YOU ARGUE WITH THINGS WHEN YOU HAVE NO DESIRE TO JUST UNDERSTAND. But, the economy will go forward and we understand there will always be problems necessitating laws and law enforcement with dissatisfied people who are never content even with $80,000.00 a year who will seek out work as an associate of narcotics dealers.  They will be at your parties and you could be used in this kind of this law work as you at least know how to command. Look at you.  You are as big as a House.   But  you cannot the threaten the system, the hand that feeds you ultimately.  Tell me you are willing to leave.  You are not. Its nice when the pretty chicks open the door for you.    Tell me honestly you understand you are only asking for attention in the subterfuge the Economy is witnessing and you can command and solve it instead of hinder. You can command.

     NOW, WHAT IS THE ANGLE MEASUREMENT OF A STRAIGHT LINE? WHY ARGUE?  AREN'T YOU HUNGRY FOR MORE SALES OF ALL YOUR STOLEN VEHICLES?  HOW CAN you have car sales if the people do not have enough money to buy them? How will they have money if their jobs were automated? The answer is that they will have money in the Capitalist wisdom of a universal unconditional minimum income support that is covered by  a 30% sales tax or a higher sales tax.  Are you the devil? No. it could just be unchastened ignorance.  What is the point of defence spending except but to defend people?  The point of social policy is to defend people and economies; defend markets. People constitute markets.   

   JUST LET THE ECONOMY WORK AS IT SHOULD AND GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THE FLOW OF DE WATAH..OUT OF DE WAY OF THE FLOW OF DE MONEY.