Caveat Emptor – let the buyer beware! This famous maxim has been part of our common law (taken from the English, who adopted it from Roman law) going back to colonial days. Until recently, with the advent of consumer protection legislation and a general shift in societal attitudes, the rule was that a purchaser must examine and judge an article for himself before agreeing to purchase it.
Caveat Venditor is the opposite – let the seller beware. In this instance, the seller of goods or property bears the risk of any defect or deficiency uncovered by the buyer.
In the areas of product liability law, where strict liability against the seller is the norm, and commercial contract law, where implied warranties of merchantability and fitness prevail, the doctrine of Caveat Emptor appears to be falling by the wayside. Sellers are often in a better position to disclose defects and prevent injuries when compared with a potential buyer attempting to ferret out such deficiencies. Society is better served, especially in the case of consumer goods, where the seller bears the risk of loss resulting from a defect in the goods.
There is a downside to this shift in attitudes, however. The cost of consumer products has been driven higher to account for the increased cost of insurance and payments to injured consumers. The risk of loss is effectively spread among the entire consuming public. Perhaps one dollar from the cost of that new tire you just bought will go to pay part of your neighbor’s claim against the tire manufacturer.
Caveat Venditor is the opposite – let the seller beware. In this instance, the seller of goods or property bears the risk of any defect or deficiency uncovered by the buyer.
In the areas of product liability law, where strict liability against the seller is the norm, and commercial contract law, where implied warranties of merchantability and fitness prevail, the doctrine of Caveat Emptor appears to be falling by the wayside. Sellers are often in a better position to disclose defects and prevent injuries when compared with a potential buyer attempting to ferret out such deficiencies. Society is better served, especially in the case of consumer goods, where the seller bears the risk of loss resulting from a defect in the goods.
There is a downside to this shift in attitudes, however. The cost of consumer products has been driven higher to account for the increased cost of insurance and payments to injured consumers. The risk of loss is effectively spread among the entire consuming public. Perhaps one dollar from the cost of that new tire you just bought will go to pay part of your neighbor’s claim against the tire manufacturer.
– BBC&B