Commitments And Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Nov. 30, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Commitments The Company has ongoing relationships with various suppliers (contract manufacturers) who manufacture the Company’s products. The contract manufacturers maintain title and control of certain raw materials and components, materials utilized in finished products, and of the finished products themselves until shipment to the Company’s customers or third-party distribution centers in accordance with agreed upon shipment terms. Although the Company typically does not have definitive minimum purchase obligations included in the contract terms with its contract manufacturers, when such obligations have been included, they have been immaterial. In the ordinary course of business, supply needs are communicated by the Company to its contract manufacturers based on orders and short-term projections, ranging from two to five months. The Company is committed to purchase the products produced by the contract manufacturers based on the projections provided. Upon the termination of contracts with contract manufacturers, the Company obtains certain inventory control rights and is obligated to work with the contract manufacturer to sell through all product held by or manufactured by the contract manufacturer on behalf of the Company during the termination notification period. If any inventory remains at the contract manufacturer at the termination date, the Company is obligated to purchase such inventory which may include raw materials, components and finished goods. Prior to the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012, amounts for inventory purchased under termination commitments have been immaterial. As a result of the unanticipated termination of the IQ Products Company contract manufacturing agreement in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012, the Company is currently obligated to purchase $1.7 million of inventory which is included in inventories in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheet as of November 30, 2014. In addition to the commitments to purchase products from contract manufacturers described above, the Company may also enter into commitments with other manufacturers to purchase finished goods and components to support innovation initiatives and/or supply chain initiatives. As of November 30, 2014, no such commitments were outstanding. Litigation The Company is party to various claims, legal actions and complaints, including product liability litigation, arising in the ordinary course of business. On February 25, 2014, a legal action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California for San Diego County (David Wolf v. WD-40 Company). Mr. Wolf’s complaint seeks class action status and alleges that the Company violated California Penal Code Section 632.7 which prohibits the interception or reception and intentional recording of “a communication transmitted between two cellular radio telephones, a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone, two cordless telephones, a cordless telephone and a landline telephone, or a cordless telephone and a cellular radio telephone” without the consent of both parties to the communication. Mr. Wolf alleges that he called a toll free number for the Company from his cellular radio telephone and that his call was recorded by the Company without his consent in violation of the statute. The California Penal Code provides for a private right of action to persons who are injured by a violation of the statute. If entitled to recover, the injured plaintiff may recover the greater of $5,000 or three times the amount of actual damages sustained by the plaintiff. The Company asserts that the Company has not violated the California Penal Code and the Company intends to vigorously defend this action. At the present time, the Company is unable to estimate the extent of possible loss or a range of possible loss that could result from this legal proceeding. On May 31, 2012, a legal action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (IQ Products Company v. WD-40 Company). IQ Products Company, a Texas corporation ("IQPC"), or an affiliate or a predecessor of IQPC, provided contract manufacturing services to the Company for many years. The allegations of IQPC’s complaint arose out of a pending termination of this business relationship. In 2011, the Company requested proposals for manufacturing services from all of its domestic contract manufacturers in conjunction with a project to redesign the Company’s supply chain architecture in North America. IQPC submitted a proposal as requested, and the Company tentatively awarded IQPC a new contract based on the information and pricing included in that proposal. IQPC subsequently sought to materially increase the quoted price for such manufacturing services. As a result, the Company chose to terminate its business relationship with IQPC. IOPC’s complaint alleged that the Company wrongfully terminated the business relationship. IQPC also raised alleged safety concerns regarding a long-standing manufacturing specification related to the Company’s products. The Company believes that IQPC’s safety concerns are unfounded. In its complaint, IQPC asserted that the Company is obligated to indemnify IQPC for prospective claims and losses based on a 1993 indemnity agreement and pursuant to common law. IQPC asserted that it was harmed by the Company's allegedly retaliatory conduct in seeking to terminate its relationship with IQPC, allegedly in response to the safety concerns identified by IQPC. IQPC seeks declaratory relief to establish that it is entitled to indemnification and also to establish that the Company is responsible for reporting the alleged safety concerns to the United States Consumer Products Safety Commission and to the United States Department of Transportation. On January 22, 2014, proceedings brought by the Company to require that all of IQPC’s claims be resolved by arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association in accordance with an arbitration provision of the parties’ pre-existing 1996 Manufacturing License and Product Purchase Agreement were concluded. An Arbitration Panel of three Arbitrators selected by the parties tentatively confirmed that all claims arising out of the agreement are subject to arbitration. Although IQPC continues to contest this determination in the arbitration proceeding, the arbitration proceeding was commenced in August 2014 and is presently scheduled to be concluded in January 2015 in San Diego, California. In its claim for arbitration, the Company seeks damages from IQPC arising out of the termination of the relationship, specifically including damages arising out of IQPC’s failure to cooperate with the Company with respect to the required sale and shipment of finished goods inventory to the Company in conjunction with the termination of the relationship. In the arbitration proceedings, IQPC is asserting claims for breach of contract damages relating to IQPC’s production of the finished goods inventory prior to termination of the relationship, damages arising out of alleged negligent misrepresentations by the Company as to its product manufacturing specifications, and storage fees for materials and finished goods held at its facilities after termination of the relationship. Indemnifications As permitted under Delaware law, the Company has agreements whereby it indemnifies senior officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was, serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company maintains Director and Officer insurance coverage that mitigates the Company’s exposure with respect to such obligations. As a result of the Company’s insurance coverage, management believes that the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. Thus, no liabilities have been recorded for these agreements as of November 30, 2014. From time to time, the Company enters into indemnification agreements with certain contractual parties in the ordinary course of business, including agreements with lenders, lessors, contract manufacturers, marketing distributors, customers and certain vendors. All such indemnification agreements are entered into in the context of the particular agreements and are provided in an attempt to properly allocate risk of loss in connection with the consummation of the underlying contractual arrangements. Although the maximum amount of future payments that the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited, management believes that the Company maintains adequate levels of insurance coverage to protect the Company with respect to most potential claims arising from such agreements and that such agreements do not otherwise have value separate and apart from the liabilities incurred in the ordinary course of the Company’s business. Thus, no liabilities have been recorded with respect to such indemnification agreements as of November 30, 2014.

Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments

The Company has ongoing relationships with various suppliers (contract manufacturers) who manufacture the Company’s products. The contract manufacturers maintain title and control of certain raw materials and components, materials utilized in finished products, and of the finished products themselves until shipment to the Company’s customers or third-party distribution centers in accordance with agreed upon shipment terms. Although the Company typically does not have definitive minimum purchase obligations included in the contract terms with its contract manufacturers, when such obligations have been included, they have been immaterial. In the ordinary course of business, supply needs are communicated by the Company to its contract manufacturers based on orders and short-term projections, ranging from two to five months. The Company is committed to purchase the products produced by the contract manufacturers based on the projections provided.

Upon the termination of contracts with contract manufacturers, the Company obtains certain inventory control rights and is obligated to work with the contract manufacturer to sell through all product held by or manufactured by the contract manufacturer on behalf of the Company during the termination notification period. If any inventory remains at the contract manufacturer at the termination date, the Company is obligated to purchase such inventory which may include raw materials, components and finished goods. Prior to the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012, amounts for inventory purchased under termination commitments have been immaterial. As a result of the unanticipated termination of the IQ Products Company contract manufacturing agreement in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012, the Company is currently obligated to purchase $1.7 million of inventory which is included in inventories in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheet as of November 30, 2014.

In addition to the commitments to purchase products from contract manufacturers described above, the Company may also enter into commitments with other manufacturers to purchase finished goods and components to support innovation initiatives and/or supply chain initiatives. As of November 30, 2014, no such commitments were outstanding.

Litigation

The Company is party to various claims, legal actions and complaints, including product liability litigation, arising in the ordinary course of business.

On February 25, 2014, a legal action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California for San Diego County (David Wolf v. WD-40 Company). Mr. Wolf’s complaint seeks class action status and alleges that the Company violated California Penal Code Section 632.7 which prohibits the interception or reception and intentional recording of “a communication transmitted between two cellular radio telephones, a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone, two cordless telephones, a cordless telephone and a landline telephone, or a cordless telephone and a cellular radio telephone” without the consent of both parties to the communication. Mr. Wolf alleges that he called a toll free number for the Company from his cellular radio telephone and that his call was recorded by the Company without his consent in violation of the statute. The California Penal Code provides for a private right of action to persons who are injured by a violation of the statute. If entitled to recover, the injured plaintiff may recover the greater of $5,000 or three times the amount of actual damages sustained by the plaintiff. The Company asserts that the Company has not violated the California Penal Code and the Company intends to vigorously defend this action. At the present time, the Company is unable to estimate the extent of possible loss or a range of possible loss that could result from this legal proceeding.

On May 31, 2012, a legal action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (IQ Products Company v. WD-40 Company). IQ Products Company, a Texas corporation ("IQPC"), or an affiliate or a predecessor of IQPC, provided contract manufacturing services to the Company for many years. The allegations of IQPC’s complaint arose out of a pending termination of this business relationship. In 2011, the Company requested proposals for manufacturing services from all of its domestic contract manufacturers in conjunction with a project to redesign the Company’s supply chain architecture in North America. IQPC submitted a proposal as requested, and the Company tentatively awarded IQPC a new contract based on the information and pricing included in that proposal. IQPC subsequently sought to materially increase the quoted price for such manufacturing services. As a result, the Company chose to terminate its business relationship with IQPC. IOPC’s complaint alleged that the Company wrongfully terminated the business relationship. IQPC also raised alleged safety concerns regarding a long-standing manufacturing specification related to the Company’s products. The Company believes that IQPC’s safety concerns are unfounded.

In its complaint, IQPC asserted that the Company is obligated to indemnify IQPC for prospective claims and losses based on a 1993 indemnity agreement and pursuant to common law. IQPC asserted that it was harmed by the Company's allegedly retaliatory conduct in seeking to terminate its relationship with IQPC, allegedly in response to the safety concerns identified by IQPC. IQPC seeks declaratory relief to establish that it is entitled to indemnification and also to establish that the Company is responsible for reporting the alleged safety concerns to the United States Consumer Products Safety Commission and to the United States Department of Transportation.

On January 22, 2014, proceedings brought by the Company to require that all of IQPC’s claims be resolved by arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association in accordance with an arbitration provision of the parties’ pre-existing 1996 Manufacturing License and Product Purchase Agreement were concluded. An Arbitration Panel of three Arbitrators selected by the parties tentatively confirmed that all claims arising out of the agreement are subject to arbitration. Although IQPC continues to contest this determination in the arbitration proceeding, the arbitration proceeding was commenced in August 2014 and is presently scheduled to be concluded in January 2015 in San Diego, California. In its claim for arbitration, the Company seeks damages from IQPC arising out of the termination of the relationship, specifically including damages arising out of IQPC’s failure to cooperate with the Company with respect to the required sale and shipment of finished goods inventory to the Company in conjunction with the termination of the relationship. In the arbitration proceedings, IQPC is asserting claims for breach of contract damages relating to IQPC’s production of the finished goods inventory prior to termination of the relationship, damages arising out of alleged negligent misrepresentations by the Company as to its product manufacturing specifications, and storage fees for materials and finished goods held at its facilities after termination of the relationship.

Indemnifications

As permitted under Delaware law, the Company has agreements whereby it indemnifies senior officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was, serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company maintains Director and Officer insurance coverage that mitigates the Company’s exposure with respect to such obligations. As a result of the Company’s insurance coverage, management believes that the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. Thus, no liabilities have been recorded for these agreements as of November 30, 2014.

From time to time, the Company enters into indemnification agreements with certain contractual parties in the ordinary course of business, including agreements with lenders, lessors, contract manufacturers, marketing distributors, customers and certain vendors. All such indemnification agreements are entered into in the context of the particular agreements and are provided in an attempt to properly allocate risk of loss in connection with the consummation of the underlying contractual arrangements. Although the maximum amount of future payments that the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited, management believes that the Company maintains adequate levels of insurance coverage to protect the Company with respect to most potential claims arising from such agreements and that such agreements do not otherwise have value separate and apart from the liabilities incurred in the ordinary course of the Company’s business. Thus, no liabilities have been recorded with respect to such indemnification agreements as of November 30, 2014.