Caveat emptor
Caveat emptor, , is Latin for "Let the buyer beware". Generally, caveat emptor is the property law doctrine that controls the sale of real property after the date of closing.
Explanation
Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, the buyer could not recover from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the seller actively concealed latent defects or otherwise made material misrepresentations amounting to fraud. Before statutory law, the buyer had no warranty of the quality of goods. In many jurisdictions now, the law requires that goods must be of "merchantable quality". However, this implied warranty can be difficult to enforce and may not apply to all products. Hence, buyers are still advised to be cautious.In the US
The modern trend in the US, however, is one of the Implied Warranty of Fitness that applies only to the sale of new residential housing by a builder-seller and the caveat emptor rule applies to all other sale situations (i.e. homeowner to buyer).See Stambovsky v. Ackley, 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 (N.Y. App. 1991). Many other jurisdictions have provisions similar to this. In addition to the quality of the merchandise, this phrase also applies to the return policy. In most jurisdictions, there is no legal requirement for the vendor to provide a refund or exchange. In many cases, the vendor will not provide a refund but will provide a credit. In the cases of software, movies and other copyrighted material many vendors will only do a direct exchange for another copy of the exact same title. Most stores require proof of purchase and impose time limits on exchanges or refunds. However, some larger chain stores will do exchanges or refunds at any time, with or without proof of purchase, although they usually require a form of picture ID and place quantity or dollar limitations on such returns. Laidlaw v. Organ,15 U.S. 178 (1817) a decision written in 1817 by Chief Justice John Marshall, is believed by scholars to have been the first U.S. Supreme Court case which laid down the rule of caveat emptor in U.S. law.Kaye, Joshua. "Disclosure, Information, the Law of Contracts, and the Mistaken Use of Laidlaw v. Organ." Unpublished. 2007. p. 2. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=joshua_kayeIn the UK
In the UK, consumer law has moved away from the caveat emptor model, with laws passed that have enhanced consumer rights and allow greater leeway to return goods that do not meet legal standards of acceptance. Consumer purchases are regulated by The Sale of Goods Act. In the UK, consumers have the right to a full refund for faulty goods, however by convention, most retail companies will allow customers to return goods within a specified period (typically a month or two) for a full refund or an exchange, even if there is no fault with the product. Exceptions may apply for goods sold as damaged or to clear. Goods bought via 'distance selling', for example online or via phone, also have a statutory 'cooling off' period of seven working days. To cancel the contract is to treat the contract as if it had not been made, except that the Regulations refer to the terms.Caveat venditor
Caveat venditor is Latin for "let the seller beware". It is a counter to caveat emptor and suggests that sellers can also be deceived in a market transaction. This forces the seller to take responsibility for the product and discourages sellers from selling products of unreasonable quality. In the landmark case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. ( 1916), New York Court Appeals Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo established that privity of duty is no longer required in regard to a lawsuit for product liability against the seller. This case is widely regarded as the origin of caveat venditor as it pertains to modern tort law in US.Notes
See also
References
- WH Hamilton, 'The Ancient Maxim Caveat Emptor' ( 1931) 40 Yale Law Journal 1133, who shows that caveat emptor never had any place in Roman law, or civil law, or lex mercatoria and was probably a mistake when implemented into the common law. Rather, there was a duty good faith.