Skip to main content

Doctrine of Caveat Emptor

 Doctrine of Caveat Emptor


Introduction


The caveat emptor rule, which means "let the buyer beware," has been replaced with the caveat venditor rule. Because of the changing conditions of modern trade and commerce, such a change was essential. Judges do not use the phrase caveat emptor too much these days. This philosophy is founded on the principle that once a consumer is happy with the acceptability of a product, he has no further right to reject it. The caveat emptor rule dates back to common law and has undergone significant revisions throughout time. The doctrine's exceptions began to expand over time as it took shape. The principle of Caveat emptor is explained in Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 which states that there is no implied condition or warranty as to quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied.


The Mistake


Caveat emptor reigned in its absolute form at the time of its inception, but it was eventually classified as harmful to the development of commerce and trade. Due to the absence of the element of reasonable examination, the caveat emptor rule in its absolute form was extremely harmful to the buyer. As a result, a buyer would have no recourse against a seller who is aware of a latent fault but failed to inform the customer, and the buyer is unable to discover the defect (as it cannot be detected by reasonable examination). Another important reason for the caveat emptor rule's fallacy is the necessity to safeguard the buyer who buys products in good faith, that is, by relying on the seller's ability and judgement. As a result, the regulation was weakened in order to give sufficient attention to the seller-buyer connection and to create an environment that encourages commercial transactions.


How it changed to Caveat Venditor?


 The rule of caveat emptor received a backlash for the first time in the case of Priest v. Last, where the buyer relied on the seller's ability and judgement and the buyer was allowed to reject the products for the first time. In this scenario, the customer trusted the seller's ability and judgement while purchasing a hot water bottle. It was discovered that if a buyer acquires an object based on the seller's expertise and judgement, the buyer will be able to reject it if there is a problem. This was the first time in common law that the buyer's reliance on the seller's judgement and skill was given such weight.

In Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v. Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd, the buyer claimed that because the picture was not by the original painter, he had the right to reject it. So, where the buyer has more competence in a certain subject and is more reasonable than the seller, it was determined that it would be incorrect to claim that the buyer has the right to reject the purchased product. As a result, the seller is obligated to tell the customer of any faults in the items as well as information about how to use the goods.


Conclusion


The rule of Caveat emptor is being taken over by the rule of Caveat venditor and is dying a slow death. The shift is being implemented in order to establish a more consumer-oriented market that encourages commercial transactions. Such a shift will aid in the creation of a more consumer-friendly market, allowing a proper balance to be maintained between the buyer's and seller's rights and obligations. However, it should be cautioned that if this strategy is carried too far, it may become overly pro-buyer, and some people may end up abusing the legal protections.
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