Caveat Emptor Rule Caveat emptor is a Latin term meaning "let the buyer beware".

It is a general rule of law that a purchaser assumes the risk of his/her purchase. The intent of the rule is to place a duty of care on the buyer in selecting an item and putting forth appropriate inquiry before completing the sale. In this way, a seller is also protected from liability for buyer's remorse. Today, the rule applies in "as is" sales, sheriff's sales, and forced sales. However, modern concepts such as an implied warranty of merchantability (that the item is fit for its intended purpose), implied warranty of habitability in landlord-tenant law, and financial disclosure rules in stock transactions, have softened the harsh application of the rule. The concept also applies to returns, so that a buyer is responsible for following the seller's policies which may limit the time for returning an item, require a receipt, or impose other requirements. Certain states have abolished the rule in regard to certain purchases. For example, in at least one state, the rule of caveat emptor no longer applies to new home sales. However, it does still apply to sales of used homes. In order to hold the seller liable in such cases of new home sales, the buyer must show: 1. There was a material defect which adversely affects health or safety; 2. The seller or the seller's agents knew of the defect before the sale; 3. The defect was such that it could not be discovered by due diligence; and 4. The house was not bought "as is." 5. The law prohibits seller or the seller's agents to engage in fraud, or deceit, or to make misrepresentations about the condition of the property.

In such a situation there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description. Usage of trade Where the usage or trade annexes an implied condition or warranty as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose and seller deviates from that. an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for the purposes for which they are required. 5. Purchase by description The rule of caveat emptor does not apply in a case where goods are bought by description from a seller. there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose. 4. Purchase by samples and description Where goods are bought by sample as well as by description and the bulk of goods do not correspond with the sample or with the description. 6. They are: 1. 2. there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality. It is a condition which goes to the root of the contract. 7. the doctrine of caveat emptor does not apply. 8. Sale by sample In a sale of goods by sample. Merchantable quality Where the goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description whatever he is manufacturer or producers or not. the rule of caveat emptor does not apply if the bulk does not correspond with the sample or if the buyer is not given an opportune ity to compare bulk with the sample. 3. then this rule (of caveat emptor) does not apply. . the buyer is entitled to reject the goods.the rule of caveat emptor shall not apply in such a case. Fitness for purpose Where the buyer informs the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required and relies upon the seller‟s skill or judgment there is in that case. and the breach of it entitles the buyers to reject the goods. Trade name In the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name. Consent by fraud Where the seller makes a false statement intentionally to the buyer and the buyer relies on it or where the seller knowingly conceals the defects in the good.Exceptions to the rule of caveat emptor There are eight exceptions to this rule of caveat emptor.

The landlord argued that Sir Thomas had no right to give up this tenancy because it had been agreed for a minimum term of 5 weeks and only five days had elapsed. In the absence of any express agreement betweent the parties. the Court held that the closing precluded any contract claim by the purchaser. which is a common law rule meaning „let the buyer beware‟.Case Examples for Caveat Emptor Rule Smith v Marrable (1843) In this case the courts recognised an exception to the caveat emptor rule. Homecheck. the Court found that making an untrue statement on the property condition disclosure statement required under New York State Law was. not a statutory provision. the caveat emptor rule has been largely replaced by statute which protects the occupier against the worst conditions and risks. The Court in that case did uphold the idea of a fraudulent representation cause of action based on the property condition disclosure report but dismissed the breach of contract claim on the basis that the contract did not contain the representations in question. in effect. et al. and that the closing extinguished any claims based on the contract." However. PeterSimone v. The exception to caveat emptor was justified on the basis that a prospective tenant of furnished premises did not have unimpeded freedom to inspect those premises to see the nature and quality of everything that he was getting. Since the introduction of fitness standards in the isn‟t necessarily so. HELD: Lord Abinger CB directed the jury that "in point of law. the contract merged any prior representations. not concealment. anyone who thought that the disclosure statement. The Court held that unless the seller actively concealed any conditions and actively made representations in the Further. Lady Marrable subsequently found the premises to be infested with bugs and Sir Thomas gave notice to the landlord that he was giving up the tenancy.. the onus is on the person entering into a tenancy to satisfy himself of the condition of the property to which the tenancy relates. As the rule in Smith v Marrable is a rule of common law. neither party is responsible for the condition of the property. or repairs. Homecheck PeterSimone v. As in the above matter. . but. Under this principle. Gave protection to a purchaser should be on notice that . the landlord had impliedly promised that the premises would be fit for habitation at the commencement of the tenancy.2007 NY Slip Op 06224 [42AD3d 518]. because the agreement was for a furnished letting. rather that a thwarting of the buyers effort to discover conditions was necessary in order to impose liability upon the Seller. every house must be taken to be let upon the implied condition that there was nothing about it so noxious as to render it uninhabitable. A landlord rented out furnished premises to Sir Thomas Marrable. Thus. it is therefore possible to exclude it altogether by means of an express term in the tenancy agreement. held that numerous structural and material defects in a home purchased by the Plaintiffs could not constitute a basis for action or damages by the buyer.

Where a seller having no title to the goods at the time of the sale. Kingsway Motors 1954 1 W. Although property in the tins had passed to the buyers.1286. The seller was not the true owner. He succeeded in the C. and in the case of an agreement to sell. in the case of a sale he has the right to sell the goods. No set off (a sum deducted to take into account any advantages received or detriments suffered) was allowed for the 4 months use. He sued the sellers for damages for breach of what is now s12(1). subsequently acquires a title. The tins bore a wrapping which infringed another company‟s trade mark and that company had the legal right to stop the sale by an injunction.IMPLIED TERMS IN SALE OF GOODS ORDINANCE  IMPLIED CONDITIONS 1. Kissenchund vs Ramprotap. held that there was a total failure of consideration. The 4 months use was regarded as irrelevant. The buyer had to remove the labels and sell the tins at a reduced price. The buyer returned the car to the true owner and sued the seller for return of the purchase price. The buyer had bargained for ownership not use.000 tins of condensed milk. sellers agreed to sell a consignment of 3. The C.R. Roland vs Divall Roland v Divall involved the sale of a car.A.A. Since the buyer had received no consideration there was no acceptance by him. Examples: Niblett v Confectioners Materials Co In Niblett v Confectioners Materials Co. Kissenchund v. never the less they could have been stopped by injunction from selling the tins. Ramprotap. The buyer used it for 4 months before discovering it had been stolen. In a contract for the sale of shares there is an implied condition that there is no encumbrance of charge on the shares in favour of a third party. he will have the right to sell the goods at the time when the property is to pass. .that title feeds the defective titles of both the original buyer and the subsequent buyer. Butterworth vs.L. that title feeds the .Condition as to title There is an implied condition on the part of the seller that.

In such cases the goods supplied must be the same as the goods described.Sale-by description Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description. Cf Pinnock Bros v Lewis & Peat Ltd [1923] Cf Pinnock Bros v Lewis & Peat Ltd [1923] 1 KB 690: Contract for the sale of copra cake but when the goods were delivered in fact an admixture of copra cake and castor beans. be a question of an Aristotelian character”. When delivered it was discovered that half the cases contained only 24 tins although the total number of tins was still 3. .2. there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description. Goods are to be sold by description when the contract contains a description of the goods to be supplied.000 tins of canned fruit packed in cases of 30 tins. he could reject the whole consignment because of the breach of s13 of the Sale of Goods Act (goods must correspond with the description).-Sec. : intended to be a broader more common sense test according to commercial use. The Court of Appeal held that notwithstanding that there was no loss to the buyer. The question of whether the substance has remained in substance the same or really becomes a substance of a different character “may if pressed to analysis. is a sale of goods by description. The market value was not affected. Such description may be in terms of the physical characteristics of the goods or may simply mention the trade mark. A sale of 50 boxes of X brand soap or of 10 tons of Y brand mustard oil. The goods did not correspond with their description. Examples: Re Moore Vs Landauer [1921] There was an agreement for the sale of 3. brand or label under which they are usually sold.000. 15. trade name.

The buyer was held to be entitled to damage. the following conditions are implied. which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample. It was held that the goods did not correspond to the sample. H. coats made out of it could not stand ordinary wear and were. whether he buys for his own use or to sell again. In this case the buyer was not given reasonable opportunity to test the bulk with the sample. Yan ingen ak Co E&SRuben Ltd vs. Lorymer vs Smith.-Sec. The court held that the buyer was entitled to reject the contract of sale. . A found that the measurement of the rubber material was different from that of the sample. James Drurnmond and Sons v.3. would after a full examination accept it under the circumstances of the case in performance of his offer to buy that article. acting reasonably. The sample of the rubber was shown to A . Sale by Sample When goods are to be supplied according to a sample agreed upon. (1822) 1B&C1. H. (c) The goods shall be free from any defect rendering them unmerchantable.thtrefore unsalable.. Examples: James Drurnmond and Sons v.On receiving the rubber material. 17." Bristol Tramways Co . the sample. The buyer went to examine the wheat a week later.B.If the defect is easily discoverable on inspection and the buyer takes delivery after inspection. One parcel was shown to him but the seller refused to show the other parcel as it was not there. (a) The bulk shall correspond with the sample in quality (b) The buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the goods with. A agreed to buy some rubber material from B. it was found that owing to a hidden defect of the cloth which could not be detected on reasonable examination. he has no remedy.Fair Bros. Merchantable This term was defined as follows : "The article in such ttality and in such condition that a reasonable man. 1949 1K. v.254. g . The court held that measurement of the rubber material was part of its quality. Two parcels of wheat were sold by sample. Fiat Motors Lid . g. Yan ingen ak Co Some mixed worsted coatings were sold by sample.

though the defect was not discoverable except by sowing the defect also existed in the sample. Godts refused to accept or pay the goods. Held the buyer was entitled to recover damages for the breach of contract. The oil corresponded with the sample. (1911) A.4. warranted only equal to samples‟ Godts entered into a written contract to buy 33 tons. Wallis v. . 15. Godts (1854) 156 er 410. Sale by sample as well as by description When goods are sold by sample as well as by description. He described the oil as: „Foreign refined rape oil. but not the description. Examples: Nichol vs.-Sec. the goods shall correspond both with the sample and with the description. Nichol showed samples of oil to Godts. the seed supplied was of a different kind.C . It was a mixture of rape and hemp oil.394. Pratt. in a contract for the sale of a quantity of the sale of seed described as “common English Sainfoin”.

Where the buyer. makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required. B.5. there was an implied' condition of fitness because the seller obviously knew that the salmon was being purchased for consumption. Watson & Sons. The condition was violated by the grocer and damages were recoverable. Ltd. so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill. expressly or by implication. and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether he is the manufacturer or not). went to a chemist and asked for a "hot water bottle". there was a breach of an implied condition of fitness and A was liable to pay damages. Held. or judgment. must be fit for use as a hot water bottle. (iv) Preist v. Lasts The plaintiff.S. Aylesbury Dairy Co. Held. The milk contained germs of typhoid. (iii) Manchester Lines v. J fell ill and his wife died as a result of eating the salmon. Rea Ltd There was a contract to supply 500 tons of coal for the S. It was held that the buyer was entitled to get damages. W supplied J with tinned salmon which was poisonous. which the bottle supplied. M a milk dealer supplied F with milk which was consumed by F and his family. Held. . "Manchester Importer". Examples of rule A: (i) Jackson vs. F's wife was infected and died. An implied condition of fitness may be annexed to a contract of sale by usage of trade or custom of the locality. (ii) Frost vs. Condition as to fitness or quality There is an implied condition as to quality or fitness for the purpose of the buyer under the following circumstances only: A. who was a draper and had no special knowledge of hot water bottles. in this case it was held that a buyer relies on the skill of the seller when he makes known to him the purpose for which the goods are required and the circumstances are such that any reasonable seller would tak6 it that his judgment is being relied upon. The coal supplied was found to be unfit for this ship.

When he was drawing the cork the bottle broke and at was injured. The first installment was accepted but the second contained a substantial quantity of horns which were damaged owing to bad packing.-1f the buyer has examined the goods. which he could have done easily. but merely looked at the outside of the casks. There is one exception to rule C. Beer & Sans B wanted to purchase some glue. The glue was found to have defects which would have been found out if B had inspected the contents of the casks. Examples of rule C: (i) Jackson v.' . Held. the sale was one by description and since the bottle was unmerchantable was entitled to recover damages. when goods are bought by description from a seller who deals goods of that description (whether he is the manufacturer or producer or not) there is an implied condition that the goods are of merchantable quality. that is. Rotax Motor Some motor-horns were to be delivered by installments. The seller showed him the glue which was stored in his warehouse in casks. (iii) Thornett & Fehr v. Held. there was no implied condition as to merchantable quality. B did not have the casks opened. Fitch Gibbons :Masked for a bottle of Stone's ginger wine in a restaurant. there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which that examination ought to have revealed. fit to sell.C. Held. (ii) Morelli v. the buyer was entitled to reject the whole installment as the goods were not saleable quality.

Packing of goods is an equally important consideration in judging their merchantability. In Thornet‟s case the buyer had the product before him to examine but he chose not to examine it. Liter on the glue was found to have defects which B could have noted if he had opened the Barrels. Section 16 (2)-Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description whether he is not the producer or manufacturer or not. Condition as to merchantability. . B & Co A firm of merchants contracted to buy from S some bales of Manila Hemp. that they will not break of under the normal use. M asked for a bottle of Stones Ginger Wine at S‟s shop. 1868LR 3 QB 197. merchantability requires that the shoes have their heals attached well enough. a) The goods are sold by description b) The seller deals with such goods Merchantable means that the goods must be fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used. It was so damaged that it was not possible to sell it as Manila hemp in the market. Held the sale was by description and M was entitled to recover damages as the bottle was not of merchantable quality. Where the product has some latent defects which cannot be revealed by ordinary examination. while M was drawing the cork. The glue was stored in the seller‟s warehouse in barrels. Beers. Morreli v Fitch &gibbons (1928)2K. This was to arrive from Singapore. the bottle broke and M was injured.636. there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality The above provision reveals that the condition of merchantability is applicable when.B. Examples: Jones vs. the condition of merchantability would apply when even if the buyer has examined the goods. Thornet v. The court held that there is no breach of implied condition as to merchantability in this case and B was not entitled to any relief. the condition of merchantability does not apply to the extent of such defects. (1919) 1 KB 486. when shoes are sold. Here as against the seller the examination is deemed to be made by the buyer. B wanted to purchase some glue. For example. The hemp arrived wetted with sea water.4. But where the buyer examines the goods and the defects are such which can be revealed by ordinary examination. This was licensed for the sale of wines. The court held that the hemp was not of merchantable quality and it was entitled to be rejected. B was given every facility to open the barrels and inspect them but B did not open the barrels. Now what amounts to an examination is a question of fact in each case. Just.

In contrast. which may not be reasonable to expect under the circumstances. It was no defence to the pub owner to argue that the beer came from reputable suppliers and that he had done all that he reasonably could to ensure that the beer was fit for consumption.5. Mason.The milk contained typhoid germs and the wife died after drinking the milk. The beer was found to have been contaminated by arsenic (a poison). In the case of food products the condition of fitness or merchantability requires that the goods should be wholesome. Wren v Holt where a buyer sued a pub owner successfully for selling beer of unmerchantable quality. short of carrying out a chemical test.The bun contained a stone which broke of C‟s teeth. such arguments are not only relevant. C brought a Bun from a baker‟s shop . Condition as to wholesomeness. . Examples: Chapronier vs. that is it should be fit for consumption. The English court held that the milk was clearly for human consumption and it was unfit for its purpose. There was a breach of theimplied term that it should be fit for its purpose under S14(3) The Sale of goods ordinance.(1905)21 TLR633. Frost vs Aylesbury Dairy Co Ltd (1905) The plaintiff bought milk from thedefendant for family consumption. but also critical in a negligence case. The court held that the seller was liable to pay damages as he breached the condition of wholesomeness.

Because the court found this use of the horse to be nonordinary. l4(b)]. the following warranties are implied in every contract of sale: 1. Examples: Whitehouse vs. Lange (1996) One court found that horse buyers who indicated to the sellers their intention to use the horse for breeding were using the horse for a particular. The effect of this clause is that if the buyer pays off the charge or encumbrance. Huprich vs. 2.Fitness of goods. required for a purpose.The buyer must get quiet possession: The buyer shall have and enjoy quiet possession of the goods. may be warranted by usage of trade : A warranty as to fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed to a contract of sale by a custom or usage of trade.The goods must be free from encumbrance : There is an implied warranty that the goods shall be free from any charge or encumbrance in favour of a third party not declared or known to the buyer before or at the time when the contract is made by Section 14 (c).IMPLIED WARRANTIES In the absence of an agreement to the contrary. 3. the buyers were entitled to an implied warranty of fitness. Since disturbance to quiet possession is likely to arise only where the vendor does not possess the right to transfer the goods.-Sec. 16(3). 1995) A farmer who sold defective horse feed was found not to be a merchant of horse feed. (Ala. The court stated that the farmer did not hold himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the sale of corn as horse feed. Bitto. he will be entitled to recover the money from the seller. nonordinary purpose The buyers soon discovered that the horse they purchased was incapable of reproducing. this clause may be regarded as an extension of the implied condition of title provided for by Section 14(a). [Sec. and therefore was not a merchant of horse feed for purposes of determining a breach of implied warranty of merchantability .

Where a statement was true when made out but due to a change of circumstances has become false by the time it is acted upon. a statement that does not present the whole truth may be regarded as a misrepresentation. a duty of disclosure will arise. there are three fundamental exceptions to this rule:  The representor must not misleadingly tell only part of the truth. the contract may be avoided. there is a duty to disclose the truth. Thus. However. trustee and beneficiary. Where there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties to a contract. and inter-family agreements. Thus. Contracts uberrimae fidei (contracts of the utmost good faith) impose a duty of disclosure of all material facts because one party is in a strong position to know the truth. solicitor and client. bank manager and client.Impact of the caveat emptor rule for the sale of goods contract The effect of the maxim caveat emptor is that a person has no duty to disclose problems voluntarily. A material fact is something which would influence a reasonable person in making the contract. there is no duty on the other person to correct it. If one party fails to do this. for example. Examples would include contracts of insurance and family settlements.   . if one person is labouring under a misapprehension.

Possible Exclusions The parties may agree that the implied warranties relating to sale by description. 6.e. the goods will conform with the description. unascertained goods and future goods. The buyer will have quiet enjoyment of the goods. satisfactory quality and sale by sample do not apply in commercial. Where the goods sold by sample. The seller has the right to sell the goods. Terms implied into sales of goods contracts by the Sale of Goods Act include: 1. 7. The ownership of goods passes at different times. 3. The agreement need not be in writing. title) passes in sales of goods is important as the owner of the goods bears the risk in the event that the goods are destroyed or they perish. The goods are free from any security interest. whether they may be returned. such as the time of delivery. 4. the goods will conform with the sample. The warranty that the seller has the right to sell the goods may not be excluded by agreement . The goods are reasonably fit for the purpose stated by the intended buyer or implied by the buyer's statements and conduct. standard of goods. the price is fixed during the course of negotiations between the parties and the contract of sale must be in relation to goods (or chattels) rather than land or buildings. Where the goods sold by description. and whether a retention of title is intended to apply to the goods sold under the contract. the price. In order to constitute a sale of goods under the legislation. The goods are of satisfactory quality unless defects are brought to the notice of the buyer prior to the contract or a reasonable inspection would reveal the defect. the consideration must be money. whether they have been sold subject to a description. but is sound practice to do so to avoid uncertainty and the terms of the sale contract. and are different for specific and named goods. rather than consumer sales. The time the ownership (i. depending upon the type of goods sold in the sale of goods contract. In some instances the contract may be able to be avoided in its entirety. 5.The Impact of Implied terms in sale of goods ordinance for the sale of goods contract A sale of goods is a "contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for money consideration called the price": s 2(1) Sale of Goods Act. 2.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful