Buck Spumante might have claims against the Australian manufacturers of the Waist Waster and Myways supermarkets in this matter under these possible actions.
(A). Possible claims against Australian manufacturers of the Waist Waster
To identify whether Australian manufacturers of the Waist Waster is liable for the tort of negligence, we have to establish the following:
a. Duty of care
To prove that the duty of care exist, following tests need to be established to prove that a duty of care is owed base on cases such as Gonoghue v Stevenson  AC 562.
1. Reasonable Foreseeability
A reasonable person in the position of Australian manufacturers of the Waist Waster would have foreseen that overuse of such an electric device could cause an explosion. If yes, then the damage that Buck suffers is reasonably foreseeable.
Neighbour is the person who is so closely and directly affect by the act of another person.
An individual must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to injure their neighbour. In this case, the possibility that causal proximity exists, where harm and damage would be sustained resulting from the fact that Australian manufacturers of the Waist Waster didn't warn Buck properly about the possibility of explosion upon overuse of the product or actually provide the goods that's safe even if it's overused (auto-termination, alarm and etc).
Using the rule in Norton Australia Pty Ltd v Street Ice Cream Pty Ltd (1969) 120 CLR 635, it is necessary to take reasonable steps to bring dangers that they ought to have known to the attention of the likely users. The fact is that the good has no any particular warning about explosion upon overusing or any warning relate to its safety issues. The...