Caveat Emptor: Sales of Goods Law

Before continuing on the long Insurance Act case, let's bring back to one of the most important element in the chapter of Sales of Goods. As we can realise that each and every lessons that is learnt throughout the course, have something to be remembered.

As thus far, from
Contract Law, we have Doctrine of Stare Decisis,
Company Law, we have Doctrine of Separate Legal Entitiy
Insurance Law, we have Doctrine of Utmost Good Faith, and
in this context we have Doctrine of Caveat Emptor.

Taken from the Latin language, Caveat Emptor simply means ' Let the buyer Beware '.

How cool was that? But sound rather vague..but let me clarify some stuffs regarding it.

From Wikipedia explanation it goes like this,

"Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, the buyer could not recover from the seller for defects on the property 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 fraud. Before statutory law, the buyer had no warranty of the quality of goods. In many jurisdictions now, the law requires that goods must be of "merchantable quality". However, this implied warranty can be difficult to enforce and may not apply to all products. Hence, buyers are still advised to be cautious"

What does it mean is simply that, sellers should bear in mind the important elements of telling the truth. Of course, you and I know that in the real world, people will say that you won't earn money if you are telling the truth. But what let the buyer beware tells is that, the buyer should know the products and at some point, it is the seller's responsibility to ensure that the product is merchantable, or sell-able. This is essentially important, as many of us, can fall into a trap that this cases is actually a fraud or misrepresentation case. And as so many bad cases around the world, the only best method to counter this, is that, the buyer although guarded by this doctrine, should be smart and wise to choose and pick the right things, and know the right stuff.

And speculating on a small issue, let's put my name in this scenario, fictional but can happen.

Eric is eating in a Mamak Stall, and is having his sumptuous Nasi Kandar (wuallaa!). Having to savor his meal halfway, the waiter who served him earlier, walked to his side and wrote on the bill and placed it below the cup of his drink. Enjoying his food to the optimum, Eric did not flip the paper or bothered on the price? He is just too into the food. Great!!! And later after maximizing his marginal utility, he went to the counter wanting to pay before realising that the bill noted RM 15 ++.

Oh he goes, 'WOW, watha" and recalled what he just ate.
A plate of rice, with muttons and carry on top. No vege, no papadum, nothing extra. Just rice and mutton and curies. And what did he drink: Ice Tea.

In this situation, some people will just go, "S**t,we got cheated and this is very expensive, but never bother asking". And this is why a lot of stalls are taking advantage. But having listen to a talk by Prof. Dr. Ishak, from Sime Darby Corporate Culture Team, he shared that, this is all within our will to, simply, ASK. He said, "I know you guys ate the food, and the guy might be complaining that you taken a lot of mutton (which apparently is always taken by them), and all sort of reason. But the courtesy is still to ASK, to KNOW and to caution our RIGHTS".

Thus, in this scenario, don't be afraid to stand up, we are not picking up a fight, but just to ask and know, and if they usually charges that way, simply don't go and eat there anymore. But if not, you may stand in the chance of not paying that much.

FYI: Caveat venditor is Latin for "let the seller beware". It is a counter to caveat emptor and suggests that sellers can also be deceived in a market transaction. This forces the seller to take responsibility for the product and discourages sellers from selling products of unreasonable quality. In the landmark case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916), New York Court Appeals Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo established that privity of duty is no longer required in regard to a lawsuit for product liability against the seller. This case is widely regarded as the origin of caveat venditor as it pertains to modern tort law in US.