Property Investments Ltd (PIL) owns a large, historic wooden building. The rear wall of the building is next door to a bar. Late night bar patrons have often used the rear wall to post graffitti. After trying many chemicals to remove the graffitti, PIL orders a container of graffitti removing solution from No More Graffitti (NMG). NMG sends the solution in a transparent container. After using the solution, PIL observes that the surface of the timber is damaged. As the timber is old and irreplaceable, PIL decides to lay a negligence claim using the Donoghue v Stevenson principles to recover its losses against NMG who is the manufacturer of the solution. Required: Write the arguments in favour of PIL and NMG. How do you think the court would decide the case