Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Feb. 29, 2016
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 to 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. The amounts for inventory purchased under termination commitments have been immaterial. 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 and renovation initiatives and/or supply chain initiatives. As of February 29, 2016, 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 May 31, 2012, a legal action was filed against the Company in a United States District Court, in Texas (IQ Products Company v. WD-40 Company). The complaint alleged that the Company wrongfully terminated a contract manufacturing relationship. IQ Products Company (“IQPC”) also raised alleged safety concerns regarding a long-standing manufacturing specification related to the Company’s products. On November 13, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) of the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) addressed a letter to IQPC to inform IQPC that it concluded an investigation and found no evidence of non-compliance with existing PHMSA regulations or an imminent public safety hazard posed by WD-40 Company products. Pursuant to a court order, the dispute was submitted to arbitration. Following nine days of testimony and full briefing, a panel of three arbitrators issued their Interim Award and decision on the merits of the dispute on May 15, 2015. The arbitrators rejected all of IQPC’s claims. On August 14, 2015, the arbitrators issued a further Interim Award to declare that the Company is the prevailing party in the proceeding for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees and costs. On November 19, 2015, the arbitrators issued a Final Award, incorporating each of the two Interim Awards and ordering IQPC to pay to the Company the sum of $1.5 million for attorney’s fees and costs. On December 4, 2015, the Company filed a motion in the United States District Court in Texas to confirm the Final Award and for the entry of judgment for the award of fees and costs. On September 24, 2015, IQPC filed an action in the United States District Court in New Jersey against the DOT and PHMSA alleging that the PHMSA failed to properly follow the applicable regulations when it previously investigated the manufacturing and required regulatory testing of the Company’s products. The Company is not named as a party to this action, but IQPC continues to allege that the Company’s products do not comply with the applicable regulation and that such alleged failure is evidence of a dangerous condition. The Company’s position, supported by the PHMSA’s prior investigation and conclusions noted above, is that all of the Company’s aerosol products are properly manufactured and tested in accordance with the applicable regulation. The Company will monitor this pending litigation and the Company will take such action as may be necessary or appropriate to protect the Company’s interests. The Company does not believe that there is any reasonable possibility that these matters related to IQPC will have a materially negative impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. 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 February 29, 2016. 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 February 29, 2016.

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 to 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. The amounts for inventory purchased under termination commitments have been immaterial.

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 and renovation initiatives and/or supply chain initiatives. As of February 29, 2016, 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 May 31, 2012, a legal action was filed against the Company in a United States District Court, in Texas (IQ Products Company v. WD-40 Company). The complaint alleged that the Company wrongfully terminated a contract manufacturing relationship. IQ Products Company (“IQPC”) also raised alleged safety concerns regarding a long-standing manufacturing specification related to the Company’s products. On November 13, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) of the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) addressed a letter to IQPC to inform IQPC that it concluded an investigation and found no evidence of non-compliance with existing PHMSA regulations or an imminent public safety hazard posed by WD-40 Company products.

Pursuant to a court order, the dispute was submitted to arbitration. Following nine days of testimony and full briefing, a panel of three arbitrators issued their Interim Award and decision on the merits of the dispute on May 15, 2015. The arbitrators rejected all of IQPC’s claims. On August 14, 2015, the arbitrators issued a further Interim Award to declare that the Company is the prevailing party in the proceeding for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees and costs. On November 19, 2015, the arbitrators issued a Final Award, incorporating each of the two Interim Awards and ordering IQPC to pay to the Company the sum of $1.5 million for attorney’s fees and costs. On December 4, 2015, the Company filed a motion in the United States District Court in Texas to confirm the Final Award and for the entry of judgment for the award of fees and costs.

On September 24, 2015, IQPC filed an action in the United States District Court in New Jersey against the DOT and PHMSA alleging that the PHMSA failed to properly follow the applicable regulations when it previously investigated the manufacturing and required regulatory testing of the Company’s products. The Company is not named as a party to this action, but IQPC continues to allege that the Company’s products do not comply with the applicable regulation and that such alleged failure is evidence of a dangerous condition. The Company’s position, supported by the PHMSA’s prior investigation and conclusions noted above, is that all of the Company’s aerosol products are properly manufactured and tested in accordance with the applicable regulation. The Company will monitor this pending litigation and the Company will take such action as may be necessary or appropriate to protect the Company’s interests.

The Company does not believe that there is any reasonable possibility that these matters related to IQPC will have a materially negative impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

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 February 29, 2016.

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 February 29, 2016.