DOCTRINE OF CAVEAT EMPTOR

Caveat emptor rule which means "let the buyer be beware" has been overridden by caveat vendor rule. Such a change is necessary as modern trade and trade conditions have changed. Nowadays the sentence caveat emptor is not used too often by the courts. This theory is based on the principle that if a customer is happy with the suitability of the product, then he is left with no subsequent right to deny that goods. The concept of caveat emptor arose in common law many years ago and has undergone significant changes over time. The doctrine's exceptions began to expand with time, as a concrete form was given.

History of Caveat Emptor:

The common law attitude towards the purchaser can be interpreted in the 19th century by the principle Caveat emptor which means letting the purchaser beware. In the English Sale of Goods Act, 1893, the duties of the seller as to disclosure requirements when a product is being sold were minimal. Concepts that could be used to shift the burden on the seller regarding quality and fitness such as 'goods fitness' and 'marketability' were not encouraged. The law was bent toward the seller and one could not even find a corresponding rule in those times that would place the burden on the sellers. It is based on the basic principle that when a consumer is pleased with the suitability of the commodity for its use, he will not be left with any subsequent right to deny the same.

The Need for Change:

The rule of Caveat emptor in its absolute form was highly detrimental to the purchaser due to the lack of the element with the reasonable review. The rule was subsequently diluted to properly recognize the relationship between the seller and the buyer and to create a scenario in which commercial transactions are encouraged. The rule was developed to protect the purchaser who purchases the goods in good conscience, that is, where the purchaser purchases the goods from the seller by relying on his skill and judgment.

Changing from Caveat Emptor to Caveat Venditor: 

In Priest v. Priest, the buyer was permitted to refuse a bottle of hot water based on the skill and judgment of the seller. This was the first common-law decision in which the buyer's reliance on the seller's judgment and skill was given importance. The buyer argued in Harlington & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v. Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd that he had the right to refuse the painting because it was not by the original painter. Thus, it was noted that where the buyer has more knowledge of a particular field and is more sensible than the seller, it would be wrong to suggest that the buyer wouldn’t have the right to reject the object. The retailer is bound by the obligation to make all the defects in the products and the details relating to the use of the goods available to buyers.

Judicial Trend:

In the case of Ward v. Hobbes, The House of Lords held that, if a seller uses artifice or disguise to conceal defects in the product to be sold, it would amount to fraud on the buyer; the doctrine of caveat emptor still does not impose any obligations on the seller to disclose defects in the product. The obligation to use care and skill while buying goods is imposed on the purchaser by the Caveat emptor doctrine.