Skip to main content

DOCTRINE OF CAVEAT EMPTOR

 DOCTRINE OF CAVEAT EMPTOR 

BY NUPUR GARG

INTRODUCTION 

The doctrine of Caveat Emptor is an integral part of the Sale of Goods Act. It translates to “let the buyer beware”. This means it lays the responsibility of their choice on the buyer themselves. It is specifically defined in Section 16 of the act “there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or the fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under such a contract of sale.”

A seller makes his goods available in the open market. The buyer previews all his options and then accordingly makes his choice. Now let’s assume that the product turns out to be defective or of inferior quality. This doctrine says that the seller will not be responsible for this. The buyer himself is responsible for the choice he made.

So, the doctrine attempts to make the buyer more conscious of his choices. It is the duty of the buyer to check the quality and the usefulness of the product he is purchasing. If the product turns out to be defective or does not live up to its potential the seller will not be responsible for this.

Illustration:

A bought a horse from B. A wanted to enter the horse in a race. Turns out the horse was not capable of running a race on account of being lame. But A did not inform B of his intentions. So, B will not be responsible for the defects of the horse. The Doctrine of Caveat Emptor will apply.

EXCEPTIONS 

Fitness for buyers’ purpose [Section 16(1)]

Section 16(1) of the said Act provides that in situations where the seller is aware either expressly or by necessary implication of the purpose for which a buyer needs to purchase a specific product, further, the goods are of such description which the seller supply in his ordinary course of business and by relying upon the judgment and skill of the seller, the buyer purchases that product, then the goods should be in accordance with the purpose. In other words, this section explains the circumstances where the seller has an obligation to supply the goods to the buyer as per the purpose for which he intends to buy the goods.

Sale under Trade Name [Proviso to S. 16(1)]

In some cases, a buyer purchases goods not by relying on the skill and judgment of the seller but by relying on the product’s trade name. In such cases, it would be unfair that the seller is burdened with the responsibility of quality. The proviso to Section 16 deals with such cases. It provides that: 

“Provided that, there is no implied condition as to fitness for any particular purpose in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified product under its patent or other trade names.

Merchantable quality [Section 16(2)]

The second most important exception to the rule of Caveat emptor is incorporated by Section 16(2) of the Act. The Section imposes a duty upon the dealer to deliver the goods of merchantable quality.

Section 16(2) states that there is an implied condition that when goods are purchased by description from a seller who deals in the goods of that description, the goods shall be of merchantable quality.

Conditions implied by trade usage [Sec. 16(3)]

Section 16(3) gives statutory force to the conditions implied by the usage of a particular trade. It states: “An implied condition or warranty as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose may be annexed by the usage of trade.”

Fraud or Misrepresentation by the Seller:

This is another immense distinctive case. If the vendor gets the consent of the customer by coercion, principle won't have an impression. furthermore, if the vendor conceals any material flaws of the things that square measure during this means found on nearer analysis nevertheless the customer won't be ready. within the 2 cases, the vendor is the responsible party.

Sale by Description and Sample:

If the arrangement is finished through a model equally as a portrayal of the factor, the client won't be reliable if the merchandise do not take once the model even as the depiction. By then the commitment can fall determinedly on the vendor.

Goods sold by Description:

At the instant that the customer buys the things dependent on the portrayal there'll be associate degree exception. If the merchandise does not organize with the portrayal, in such a case the vendor is going to be in danger for the things.

CONCLUSIONS

It tends to be closed from the above investigation that the standard of caveat emptor is gradually getting away and is being taken over by the ensuing guideline of caveat venditor, the progressions being credited to a more consumer arranged market wherein business transactions are being energized. Such a change, won't just assistance make a proper harmony between the rights and commitments of the seller and the buyer. However, it ought to be noticed that if this sever of progress is taken excessively far, we may wind up in recording transactions because of the methodology at that point turning out to be incredibly favorable to buyer who may abuse the protection under law.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more