Q: Does “caveat emptor” still hold any meaning in modern business?
A: How many of you took Latin at some point in your education and actually remember what this term means? Okay, the three of you in the back row can put your hands down. Now, how many of you actually work this term into conversation on a routine basis? Anybody? Anybody? Bueler? Bueler? I thought not.
For the benefit of the rest of us who do not have our Latin-Modern English dictionary at the ready, “caveat emptor” is a phrase that literally means, “let the buyer beware.” It is an axiom used to encourage buyers to use caution in what they purchase. If the buyer is truly being aware, he will know his rights in relationship to the product he is purchasing. It further implies the buyer does a certain amount of “due diligence” before he buys the thing, just to be sure that the product is what is advertised.
Conversely, the maxim is a phrase just as widely bandied about by merchants. By saying, “let the buyer beware,” the seller is attempting to disclaim responsibility for a faulty product. “Hey,” the angered purchaser snaps to the merchant, “this widget you sold me fell into a million pieces the moment I got it home. I want a refund.” How will the merchant respond? You guessed it: “Caveat emptor.”
Today’s marketplace is certainly a far cry from the bazaars of old, where this phrase, no doubt, had its origination. Does caveat emptor still hold sway in today’s business scheme? Say it with me class: “It depends.”
In days of old, it was difficult, if not impossible, for buyers to truly know if what they were buying was filled with so many defects that the product would be rendered useless as soon as it was sold. Today, the savvy buyer has the advantage of being able to research the product and company before buying their product. The Internet, Consumer Reports, and the Better Business Bureaus allow a buyer to determine whether the seller and his product is as reputable as the infomercial claims. Thus, in a certain sense caveat emptor is still of some effect. As the buyer, you have a limited duty to make sure the seller is trustworthy.
But, that duty does not absolve all sellers. Today, the idea of caveat emptor has been replaced with the doctrine of “implied warranty.” An implied warranty basically asserts that the given product will work as it is advertised to work, absent negligence. This a seller cannot disclaim. In other words, if a seller claims that the widget he has for sale will slice and dice, but actually explodes into tiny bits of shrapnel, the seller may be liable based on the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
You will remember from a previous column that waivers and disclaimers that attempt to bar liability are permissible, unless they run afoul of public policy. To disclaim a harmful product by saying, “caveat emptor” is as vacuous as putting a license plate on one’s car that says, “Not responsible for injury or death as a result of this vehicle.”
Being an aware buyer, regardless of what warranty is (or is not) implied, is probably the best method for staving off a lawsuit.
A: How many of you took Latin at some point in your education and actually remember what this term means? Okay, the three of you in the back row can put your hands down. Now, how many of you actually work this term into conversation on a routine basis? Anybody? Anybody? Bueler? Bueler? I thought not.
For the benefit of the rest of us who do not have our Latin-Modern English dictionary at the ready, “caveat emptor” is a phrase that literally means, “let the buyer beware.” It is an axiom used to encourage buyers to use caution in what they purchase. If the buyer is truly being aware, he will know his rights in relationship to the product he is purchasing. It further implies the buyer does a certain amount of “due diligence” before he buys the thing, just to be sure that the product is what is advertised.
Conversely, the maxim is a phrase just as widely bandied about by merchants. By saying, “let the buyer beware,” the seller is attempting to disclaim responsibility for a faulty product. “Hey,” the angered purchaser snaps to the merchant, “this widget you sold me fell into a million pieces the moment I got it home. I want a refund.” How will the merchant respond? You guessed it: “Caveat emptor.”
Today’s marketplace is certainly a far cry from the bazaars of old, where this phrase, no doubt, had its origination. Does caveat emptor still hold sway in today’s business scheme? Say it with me class: “It depends.”
In days of old, it was difficult, if not impossible, for buyers to truly know if what they were buying was filled with so many defects that the product would be rendered useless as soon as it was sold. Today, the savvy buyer has the advantage of being able to research the product and company before buying their product. The Internet, Consumer Reports, and the Better Business Bureaus allow a buyer to determine whether the seller and his product is as reputable as the infomercial claims. Thus, in a certain sense caveat emptor is still of some effect. As the buyer, you have a limited duty to make sure the seller is trustworthy.
But, that duty does not absolve all sellers. Today, the idea of caveat emptor has been replaced with the doctrine of “implied warranty.” An implied warranty basically asserts that the given product will work as it is advertised to work, absent negligence. This a seller cannot disclaim. In other words, if a seller claims that the widget he has for sale will slice and dice, but actually explodes into tiny bits of shrapnel, the seller may be liable based on the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
You will remember from a previous column that waivers and disclaimers that attempt to bar liability are permissible, unless they run afoul of public policy. To disclaim a harmful product by saying, “caveat emptor” is as vacuous as putting a license plate on one’s car that says, “Not responsible for injury or death as a result of this vehicle.”
Being an aware buyer, regardless of what warranty is (or is not) implied, is probably the best method for staving off a lawsuit.
______________________
Copyright Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. 2007. May not be used absent the express written permission of the author. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.
No comments:
Post a Comment