Knowledge

Caveat emptor

Source 📝

298:, when the vendor has other instances of the same mass-produced merchandise in stock inventory), either the vendor or the buyer may insist on an "even exchange" for other, "conforming" instances of the product. When conforming goods are not available in stock but are available for the dealer to purchase (usually on the open or "spot" market), the buyer may require that the seller obtain the goods elsewhere, even at a higher price, with the seller having to incur a loss equivalent to the price difference. If the vendor still does not or cannot provide the goods and the dispute proceeds to litigation (as opposed to renegotiation or settlement), then as in all cases of vendor breaches of contract, the buyer may recover only the damages that s/he would have suffered had s/he taken all feasible steps to minimize ("mitigate") his/her damages suffered. 294:(such as describing the goods as sold "as is" and/or "with all faults") or other limitations such as the below-discussed limitations on remedies. The perfect-tender rule states that if a buyer who inspects new goods with reasonable promptness discovers them to be "nonconforming" (failing to meet the description provided or any other standards reasonably expectable by a buyer in his/her situation) and does not use the goods or take other actions constituting acceptance of them, the buyer may promptly return or refuse to accept ("reject") them and demand that the defect be remedied ("cured"). When goods fitting the same description and expectations are available for sale ( 27: 492: 506: 380:
In the UK, consumers have the right to a full refund for faulty goods. However, traditionally, many retailers allow customers to return goods within a specified period (typically two weeks to two months) for a full refund or an exchange, even if there is no fault with the product. Exceptions may
710:
Restat 2d of Torts, § 395: "In 1916 the leading modern case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050, L.R.A. 1916F, 696, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 440, 13 N.C.C.A. 1029 (1916), discarded the general rule of non-liability, by holding that "inherently dangerous" articles included any
176:("Let a purchaser beware, for he ought not to be ignorant of the nature of the property which he is buying from another party.") I.e. the buyer should assure himself that the product is good and that the seller had the right to sell it, as opposed to receiving stolen property. 353:, will, however, do exchanges or refunds at any time, with or without proof of purchase, although they usually require a form of picture identification and place per-transaction and/or per-person quantity or dollar limitations on such returns. 465:
is a Latin phrase meaning "let the reader beware". It means that when reading something, the reader should take careful note of the contents, and undertake due diligence on whether the contents are accurate, relevant, reliable and so forth.
384:
Goods bought through "distance selling," for example online or by phone, also have a statutory "cooling off" period of fourteen calendar days during which the purchase contract can be cancelled and treated as if not done.
164:
and its use as a disclaimer of warranties arises from the fact that buyers typically have less information than the seller about the good or service they are purchasing. This quality of the situation is known as
392:
is generally held to apply to transactions between businesses unless it can be shown that the seller had a clear information advantage over the buyer that could not have been removed by carrying out reasonable
1044: 325:
material, many vendors will offer only a direct exchange for another copy of the same title, with the effect that the initial transfer or license of intellectual-property rights is preserved. Most
301:
As a default rule, the perfect-tender rule may be "contracted around" in ways that specify or limit a buyer's remedies (and that accordingly reduce the market price that rational buyers are
711:
article which would be dangerous to human safety if negligently made. After the passage of more than forty years, this decision is now all but universally accepted by the American courts."
215:
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
854: 1127: 1037: 881: 928: 687:
Consumer Survival: An Encyclopedia of Consumer Rights, Safety, and Protection [2 Volumes]: An Encyclopedia of Consumer Rights, Safety, and Protection
602: 1283: 961: 942: 1051: 290:, the sale of new goods is governed by the "perfect-tender" rule unless the parties to the sale expressly agree in advance to terms equivalent to 1439: 1231: 627: 874: 480:, or "let the listener beware", where caution is urged regarding all messages, in particular spoken messages, such as a radio advertisement. 1134: 1387: 272:
rule applies to all other real-estate sale situations (e.g. homeowner to buyer). Other jurisdictions have provisions similar to this.
1412: 867: 1543: 1342: 1016: 1009: 921: 369:
and allow greater leeway to return goods that do not meet legal standards of acceptance. Consumer purchases are regulated by the
745: 1538: 1224: 1058: 695: 573: 1023: 70: 48: 41: 1533: 1120: 1083: 935: 234:
requires that goods must be "fit for the particular purpose" and of "merchantable quality", per Section 15 of the
1158: 179:
A common way that information asymmetry between seller and buyer has been addressed is through a legally binding
242:
can be difficult to enforce and may not apply to all products. Hence, buyers are still advised to be cautious.
1238: 1099: 1065: 606: 1186: 424: 437: 1276: 1487: 1217: 980: 890: 1030: 429: 1432: 953: 914: 370: 35: 1269: 1172: 1145: 1072: 823: 287: 1371: 846: 374: 235: 52: 670: 169:'. Defects in the good or service may be hidden from the buyer, and only known to the seller. 1349: 1180: 840: 816:
and was probably a mistake when implemented into the common law. Rather, there was a duty of
685: 532: 166: 157: 553: 991: 905: 721: 587: 184: 8: 1478: 1305: 1168: 433: 1405: 1380: 1290: 1106: 346: 302: 1507: 1498: 1423: 1301: 691: 658: 646: 526: 441: 330: 314: 281: 855:
From Caveat Emptor to Caveat Venditor - a Brief History of English Sale of Goods Law
1446: 1315: 1260: 1210: 1197: 310: 261: 239: 122: 91: 771: 1453: 1113: 1092: 511: 366: 149: 1468: 1333: 1322: 1153: 812: 1527: 859: 394: 223: 153: 971: 746:"Caveat Auditor: The Role Of Critical Thinking In Modern Business Training" 342: 334: 146: 1045:
Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.
839: 999: 817: 554:"Caveat emptor - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary" 497: 264:
applies in the real-estate context to only the sale of new residential
231: 995: 326: 322: 196: 491: 227: 212: 180: 444:
against the seller. This case is widely regarded as the origin of
350: 138: 1128:
Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court
1038:
In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation
505: 338: 306: 520: 416: 388:
Although no longer applied in consumer law, the principle of
373:, whilst business-to-business purchases are regulated by the 265: 216: 208: 204: 174:
Caveat emptor, quia ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit
134: 333:
and impose time limits on exchanges or refunds. Some larger
109: 684:
Reiboldt, Wendy; Mallers, Melanie Horn (26 November 2013).
449: 318: 97: 160:, but may also apply to sales of other goods. The phrase 647:"Caveat Venditor Law and Legal Definition - USLegal, Inc" 929:
Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.
487: 262:
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
106: 103: 100: 94: 1284:Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America 962:Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States 677: 628:"Changing your mind about something you've bought" 943:Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc 440:is no longer required in regard to a lawsuit for 1525: 1440:Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States 1052:Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology 810:never had any place in Roman law, civil law, or 361:In the UK, consumer law has moved away from the 1232:G. L. Christian and Associates v. United States 683: 889: 875: 381:apply for goods sold as damaged or to clear. 137:for "Let the buyer beware". It has become a 1135:Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 365:model, with laws passed that have enhanced 309:will not provide a refund but will provide 1388:Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly 882: 868: 230:ensuring the quality of goods. In the UK, 16:Latin phrase and principle in contract law 260:The modern trend in the U.S. is that the 71:Learn how and when to remove this message 1413:SCO Group, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 922:Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel & Casino 34:This article includes a list of general 1343:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. 1017:Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. 1526: 1225:Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 1059:Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc. 863: 305:for the goods). In many cases, the 20: 605:. Trading Standards. Archived from 275: 207:could not recover damages from the 13: 1024:Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. 798:Hamilton, W.H. "The Ancient Maxim 769: 592:572 N.Y.S.2d 672 (N.Y. App. 1991). 576:FindLaw.com, accessed 23 Dec 2019. 405: 40:it lacks sufficient corresponding 14: 1555: 832: 825:MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company 469: 356: 268:by a builder-seller and that the 1159:Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent 1121:King v. Trustees of Boston Univ. 936:Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green 644: 504: 490: 455: 250: 90: 25: 763: 738: 574:What Does 'Caveat Emptor' Mean? 556:. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated 1544:Legal doctrines and principles 1239:Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton 1100:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon 1066:Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc. 714: 704: 638: 620: 595: 579: 567: 546: 255: 190: 1: 1187:MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 722:"Definition of CAVEAT LECTOR" 603:"Trader's Guide to Civil Law" 539: 425:MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 419:for "let the seller beware." 400: 245: 1539:Legal rules with Latin names 7: 1277:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc. 483: 226:, the buyer had no express 10: 1560: 1488:Drennan v. Star Paving Co. 1308:(unwritten & informal) 1218:Seixas and Seixas v. Woods 981:Ellefson v. Megadeth, Inc. 891:United States contract law 792: 279: 152:that controls the sale of 1497: 1477: 1467: 1422: 1397: 1370: 1363: 1332: 1300: 1259: 1253:Defense against formation 1252: 1196: 1167: 1144: 1082: 1031:ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg 990: 970: 952: 904: 897: 448:as it pertains to modern 185:guarantee of satisfaction 121:, "may he/she beware", a 1433:United States v. Spearin 954:Implied-in-fact contract 915:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. 690:. ABC-CLIO. p. 94. 422:In the landmark case of 371:Consumer Rights Act 2015 1534:Latin words and phrases 1270:Morrison v. Amway Corp. 1146:Substantial performance 1073:Feldman v. Google, Inc. 726:www.merriam-webster.com 651:definitions.uslegal.com 288:Uniform Commercial Code 286:Under Article 2 of the 141:in English. Generally, 55:more precise citations. 847:Encyclopedia Americana 827:(Opinion of the Court) 430:New York Court Appeals 375:Sale of Goods Act 1979 172:It is a short form of 1350:Buchwald v. Paramount 1181:De Cicco v. Schweizer 841:"Caveat Emptor"  632:citizensadvice.org.uk 533:List of Latin phrases 167:information asymmetry 906:Offer and acceptance 588:Stambovsky v. Ackley 1479:Promissory estoppel 1364:Cancelling Contract 772:"Caveat Definition" 476:Another variant is 434:Benjamin N. Cardozo 211:for defects on the 1406:Stoddard v. Martin 1381:Sherwood v. Walker 1291:McMichael v. Price 1107:Kirksey v. Kirksey 1010:Specht v. Netscape 898:Contract formation 806:1133, argues that 750:eLearning Industry 669:has generic name ( 313:. In the cases of 156:after the date of 1521: 1520: 1517: 1516: 1508:Britton v. Turner 1499:Unjust enrichment 1463: 1462: 1424:Misrepresentation 1359: 1358: 1302:Statute of frauds 1248: 1247: 697:978-1-59884-937-0 527:Chandelor v Lopus 442:product liability 436:established that 331:proof of purchase 282:Personal property 236:Sale of Goods Act 81: 80: 73: 1551: 1475: 1474: 1447:Laidlaw v. Organ 1368: 1367: 1316:Buffaloe v. Hart 1304:(written) & 1261:Illusory promise 1257: 1256: 1211:Hawkins v. McGee 1198:Implied warranty 902: 901: 884: 877: 870: 861: 860: 851: 843: 804:Yale Law Journal 786: 785: 783: 782: 767: 761: 760: 758: 757: 742: 736: 735: 733: 732: 718: 712: 708: 702: 701: 681: 675: 674: 668: 664: 662: 654: 645:Inc., US Legal. 642: 636: 635: 624: 618: 617: 615: 614: 599: 593: 583: 577: 571: 565: 564: 562: 561: 550: 514: 509: 508: 500: 495: 494: 276:Chattel property 240:implied warranty 129:, "to beware" + 116: 115: 112: 111: 108: 105: 102: 99: 96: 76: 69: 65: 62: 56: 51:this article by 42:inline citations 29: 28: 21: 1559: 1558: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1513: 1493: 1459: 1454:Smith v. Bolles 1418: 1393: 1355: 1328: 1296: 1244: 1192: 1163: 1140: 1114:Angel v. Murray 1093:Hamer v. Sidway 1078: 986: 966: 948: 893: 888: 838: 835: 795: 790: 789: 780: 778: 768: 764: 755: 753: 744: 743: 739: 730: 728: 720: 719: 715: 709: 705: 698: 682: 678: 666: 665: 656: 655: 643: 639: 626: 625: 621: 612: 610: 601: 600: 596: 584: 580: 572: 568: 559: 557: 552: 551: 547: 542: 537: 512:Business portal 510: 503: 496: 489: 486: 474: 460: 446:caveat venditor 438:privity of duty 413:Caveat venditor 410: 407:Caveat venditor 403: 367:consumer rights 359: 284: 278: 258: 253: 248: 193: 93: 89: 77: 66: 60: 57: 47:Please help to 46: 30: 26: 17: 12: 11: 5: 1557: 1547: 1546: 1541: 1536: 1519: 1518: 1515: 1514: 1512: 1511: 1503: 1501: 1495: 1494: 1492: 1491: 1483: 1481: 1472: 1469:Quasi-contract 1465: 1464: 1461: 1460: 1458: 1457: 1450: 1443: 1436: 1428: 1426: 1420: 1419: 1417: 1416: 1409: 1401: 1399: 1395: 1394: 1392: 1391: 1384: 1376: 1374: 1365: 1361: 1360: 1357: 1356: 1354: 1353: 1346: 1338: 1336: 1334:Unconscionable 1330: 1329: 1327: 1326: 1323:Foman v. Davis 1319: 1311: 1309: 1306:Parol evidence 1298: 1297: 1295: 1294: 1287: 1280: 1273: 1265: 1263: 1254: 1250: 1249: 1246: 1245: 1243: 1242: 1235: 1228: 1221: 1214: 1206: 1204: 1194: 1193: 1191: 1190: 1183: 1177: 1175: 1165: 1164: 1162: 1161: 1156: 1154:Lucy v. Zehmer 1150: 1148: 1142: 1141: 1139: 1138: 1131: 1124: 1117: 1110: 1103: 1096: 1088: 1086: 1080: 1079: 1077: 1076: 1069: 1062: 1055: 1048: 1041: 1034: 1027: 1020: 1013: 1005: 1003: 988: 987: 985: 984: 976: 974: 968: 967: 965: 964: 958: 956: 950: 949: 947: 946: 939: 932: 925: 918: 910: 908: 899: 895: 894: 887: 886: 879: 872: 864: 858: 857: 852: 834: 833:External links 831: 830: 829: 821: 813:lex mercatoria 794: 791: 788: 787: 770:Kenton, Will. 762: 737: 713: 703: 696: 676: 637: 619: 594: 578: 566: 544: 543: 541: 538: 536: 535: 530: 523: 517: 516: 515: 501: 485: 482: 478:Caveat Auditor 473: 471:Caveat auditor 468: 459: 454: 409: 404: 402: 399: 358: 357:United Kingdom 355: 303:willing to pay 280:Main article: 277: 274: 257: 254: 252: 249: 247: 244: 192: 189: 133:, "buyer") is 79: 78: 33: 31: 24: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1556: 1545: 1542: 1540: 1537: 1535: 1532: 1531: 1529: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1504: 1502: 1500: 1496: 1490: 1489: 1485: 1484: 1482: 1480: 1476: 1473: 1470: 1466: 1456: 1455: 1451: 1449: 1448: 1444: 1442: 1441: 1437: 1435: 1434: 1430: 1429: 1427: 1425: 1421: 1415: 1414: 1410: 1408: 1407: 1403: 1402: 1400: 1396: 1390: 1389: 1385: 1383: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1375: 1373: 1369: 1366: 1362: 1352: 1351: 1347: 1345: 1344: 1340: 1339: 1337: 1335: 1331: 1325: 1324: 1320: 1318: 1317: 1313: 1312: 1310: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1293: 1292: 1288: 1286: 1285: 1281: 1279: 1278: 1274: 1272: 1271: 1267: 1266: 1264: 1262: 1258: 1255: 1251: 1241: 1240: 1236: 1234: 1233: 1229: 1227: 1226: 1222: 1220: 1219: 1215: 1213: 1212: 1208: 1207: 1205: 1203: 1202:caveat emptor 1199: 1195: 1189: 1188: 1184: 1182: 1179: 1178: 1176: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1160: 1157: 1155: 1152: 1151: 1149: 1147: 1143: 1137: 1136: 1132: 1130: 1129: 1125: 1123: 1122: 1118: 1116: 1115: 1111: 1109: 1108: 1104: 1102: 1101: 1097: 1095: 1094: 1090: 1089: 1087: 1085: 1084:Consideration 1081: 1075: 1074: 1070: 1068: 1067: 1063: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1054: 1053: 1049: 1047: 1046: 1042: 1040: 1039: 1035: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1019: 1018: 1014: 1012: 1011: 1007: 1006: 1004: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 983: 982: 978: 977: 975: 973: 969: 963: 960: 959: 957: 955: 951: 945: 944: 940: 938: 937: 933: 931: 930: 926: 924: 923: 919: 917: 916: 912: 911: 909: 907: 903: 900: 896: 892: 885: 880: 878: 873: 871: 866: 865: 862: 856: 853: 849: 848: 842: 837: 836: 828: 826: 822: 819: 815: 814: 809: 808:caveat emptor 805: 801: 800:Caveat Emptor 797: 796: 777: 773: 766: 751: 747: 741: 727: 723: 717: 707: 699: 693: 689: 688: 680: 672: 660: 652: 648: 641: 633: 629: 623: 609:on 2009-02-11 608: 604: 598: 591: 589: 582: 575: 570: 555: 549: 545: 534: 531: 529: 528: 524: 522: 519: 518: 513: 507: 502: 499: 493: 488: 481: 479: 472: 467: 464: 463:Caveat lector 458: 457:Caveat lector 453: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 426: 420: 418: 414: 408: 398: 396: 395:due diligence 391: 390:caveat emptor 386: 382: 378: 376: 372: 368: 364: 363:caveat emptor 354: 352: 348: 344: 340: 336: 332: 328: 324: 320: 316: 312: 308: 304: 299: 297: 293: 292:caveat emptor 289: 283: 273: 271: 270:caveat emptor 267: 263: 251:United States 243: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 224:statutory law 220: 218: 214: 210: 206: 202: 201:caveat emptor 198: 188: 186: 182: 177: 175: 170: 168: 163: 162:caveat emptor 159: 155: 154:real property 151: 148: 144: 143:caveat emptor 140: 136: 132: 128: 124: 120: 114: 87: 86: 85:Caveat emptor 75: 72: 64: 54: 50: 44: 43: 37: 32: 23: 22: 19: 1506: 1486: 1452: 1445: 1438: 1431: 1411: 1404: 1386: 1379: 1348: 1341: 1321: 1314: 1289: 1282: 1275: 1268: 1237: 1230: 1223: 1216: 1209: 1201: 1185: 1133: 1126: 1119: 1112: 1105: 1098: 1091: 1071: 1064: 1057: 1050: 1043: 1036: 1029: 1022: 1015: 1008: 979: 972:Mailbox rule 941: 934: 927: 920: 913: 845: 824: 811: 807: 803: 802:" (1931) 40 799: 779:. Retrieved 776:Investopedia 775: 765: 754:. Retrieved 752:. 2017-01-17 749: 740: 729:. Retrieved 725: 716: 706: 686: 679: 650: 640: 631: 622: 611:. Retrieved 607:the original 597: 586: 581: 569: 558:. Retrieved 548: 525: 477: 475: 470: 462: 461: 456: 445: 423: 421: 412: 411: 406: 389: 387: 383: 379: 362: 360: 335:chain stores 321:, and other 311:store credit 300: 295: 291: 285: 269: 259: 221: 200: 194: 183:, such as a 178: 173: 171: 161: 147:contract law 142: 130: 126: 118: 84: 83: 82: 67: 58: 39: 18: 1173:3rd parties 667:|last= 452:law in US. 323:copyrighted 256:Real estate 191:Explanation 123:subjunctive 53:introducing 1528:Categories 1471:obligation 1398:Illegality 1002:agreements 1000:Browsewrap 992:Shrinkwrap 818:good faith 781:2020-11-27 756:2020-11-27 731:2020-11-27 613:2007-11-29 560:2008-03-30 540:References 498:Law portal 401:Variations 337:, such as 246:By country 232:common law 195:Under the 36:references 996:Clickwrap 238:but this 197:principle 150:principle 659:cite web 484:See also 428:(1916), 329:require 315:software 228:warranty 213:property 181:warranty 125:form of 61:May 2013 1372:Mistake 1169:Privity 850:. 1920. 793:Sources 351:Walmart 343:Staples 266:housing 222:Before 158:closing 145:is the 139:proverb 117:; from 49:improve 1171:& 694:  432:Judge 347:Target 339:F.Y.E. 327:stores 319:movies 307:vendor 209:seller 203:, the 131:ēmptor 127:cavēre 119:caveat 38:, but 521:As is 417:Latin 349:, or 217:fraud 205:buyer 135:Latin 692:ISBN 671:help 585:See 450:tort 296:e.g. 415:is 199:of 110:ɔːr 1530:: 1200:, 998:, 994:, 844:. 774:. 748:. 724:. 663:: 661:}} 657:{{ 649:. 630:. 397:. 377:. 345:, 341:, 317:, 219:. 187:. 883:e 876:t 869:v 820:. 784:. 759:. 734:. 700:. 673:) 653:. 634:. 616:. 590:, 563:. 165:' 113:/ 107:t 104:p 101:m 98:ɛ 95:ˈ 92:/ 88:( 74:) 68:( 63:) 59:( 45:.

Index

references
inline citations
improve
introducing
Learn how and when to remove this message
/ˈɛmptɔːr/
subjunctive
Latin
proverb
contract law
principle
real property
closing
information asymmetry
warranty
guarantee of satisfaction
principle
buyer
seller
property
fraud
statutory law
warranty
common law
Sale of Goods Act
implied warranty
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
housing
Personal property
Uniform Commercial Code

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.