Q. “Doctrine of Caveat Emptor has lost much of his significance in modern times.” Discuss. [20 marks - 2015]
Q. “Doctrine of caveat emptor has lost much of his significance in the modern times”. Discuss. [20 marks - 2016]
Q. The rule of “caveat emptor” has become almost the rule of “caveat venditor”. Discuss. [20 marks - 2017]
Q. What is the principle of 'Caveat Emptor'? What are its exceptions? [10 marks - 2022]
The Doctrine of Caveat Emptor
Caveat Emptor is a Latin term which means buyer be aware. The Doctrine of Caveat Emptor means that the responsibility lies on the buyer of goods and he must perform due diligence before the purchase of the goods.
Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, defines Caveat Emptor as ‘“there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or the fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under such a contract of sale“
For example, a seller sells certain goods to a buyer. If the buyer later discovers a defect in the goods that could have been detected earlier by him, the seller cannot be sued.
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Caveat Emptor
1. Fitness of the Product for the Buyer’s Purpose of Purchase- Section 16 (1)
If the buyer purchases some item in good faith after explaining the purpose behind the purchase, it relieves the buyer from the responsibility. In this case, it becomes the duty of the seller to supply the right goods to the buyer.
For example, A purchase mango from B explaining him that the mango is required to make ice cream the next day. The seller says that this will ripen the next day and will be fit for making ice cream. The seller will be responsible if the mangoes do not ripen the next day.
2. Sale of Goods Under the Trade Name - Proviso to Section 16(1)
If the buyer purchases a branded product or a product sold under a trading name, then he is assured of the quality that is associated with that brand name. In this case the Caveat Emptor will not be applicable.
3. Merchantable Quality of Goods- Section 16(2)
As per Section 16(2), if the goods are sold under the pretext that they correspond to a particular description, then there is an implied warranty that the goods must conform to the mercantile quality.
In McKenzie v. Nagendra Nath (1919), the seller was asked to pay for the repair of the defective car.
4. Examination by buyer - Proviso to S. 16(2)
The proviso to S. 16(2) provides that “if upon examination of the goods to be purchased, the defects ought to have been revealed, then no implied condition as regards to the defect will exist.”
4. Conditions implied by trade usage - Section 16(3)
Section 16(3) of the Sale of Goods Act states:
“An implied condition or warranty as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose may be annexed by the usage of trade.”
In the case of Peter Darlington Partners Ltd v Gosho Co Ltd (1964), it was held that the buyer has the right to reject the goods or to claim damages in case of any defect.
Significance of Doctrine of Caveat Emptor in modern times
Doctrine of Caveat Emptor has lost much of his significance in modern times due to the following reasons.
1. Competition: In this age of stiff competition, customer satisfaction has taken priority over everything else. Now a days the contract of sale itself guarantees replacement or refund of the defective goods. Thus, the exceptions carved out under Section 16 lose their relevance, if not become completely obsolete.
2. Consumer protection: The doctrine of caveat emptor has also lost its relevance due to the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Consumer Protection Act clearly embraces the doctrine of caveat venditor. Section 84 of the Consumer Protection imposes a liability on the manufacturer for any defect or quality issues.
Section 86 of the Act provides that even sellers who have not manufactured the product can be held liable for a defective product in the certain conditions.
Conclusion
Thus, the various provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, by imposing the liability on the seller or the manufacturer for the defective product, have adopted the doctrine of caveat venditor. This also signals the declining relevance of the doctrine of caveat emptor.
In Smt.Rekha Sahu vs The Uco Bank (2013), the Allahabad High Court held that the Indian jurisprudence has witnessed a shift from the doctrine of caveat emptor to the doctrine of caveat venditor. Thus, the seller was liable to pay the dues.
No comments:
Post a Comment