I agree
A supplier can only be held responsible to provide a product that meets the label specifications.
I don't know the details behind this but if the feed was exactly as described on the label & didn't specifically say it contained Taurine (?) or to a specific level then i don't think CSS has much of a case.
If the feed didn't contain the nutritional value it claimed etc then they will have a strong case if they can get the scientific evidence to back it up.
Ann: Feed Litigation Update, page-12
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 9 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Add CSS (ASX) to my watchlist
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
18.5¢ |
Change
-0.005(2.63%) |
Mkt cap ! $32.21M | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| 19.0¢ | 19.0¢ | 18.5¢ | $2.812K | 15.00K |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | 233664 | 18.0¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| 20.0¢ | 10000 | 1 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 15.55pm 15/11/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
| CSS (ASX) Chart |
