Question

In the 20's there was a situation where a man brought his son with him into a drug store. The sore counter featured q wind up toy that the little boy wanted. His father decided the ten cents was worth spending and bought the toy for him. The clerk collected the money turned a pulled a boxed toy from a nearby shelf. The man and his son exited . The little boy wanted to play with his new toy immediately. The father let him only to discover the toy didn't work at all. Upset, the father and son returned to the store and he demanded his money back. The clerk refused so the father left and eventually sues the store, the case eventually wound up in the U,S. Supreme Court where the court sided for the store explaining that the father should have examined the purchase before exiting the store. The doctrine of caveat Emptor or "Let the buyer beware" was the ruling principle. In this scenario, who was right...who was wrong and why? Explain in detail!

Answer 1

The doctrine of caveat Emptor or "Let the buyer beware" is a concept that was prevalent years ago when very few consumer protection laws existed. The principle behind this doctrine was that the buyer must be aware of the transactions he is getting into and must thoroughly inspect/check a product before buying. While this principle certainly does NOT intend to encourage sellers from using shady or fraudulent practices to fool buyers, it does hold the buyers responsible for their purchases.

Hence, if such an argument is applied in a court of law where the Caveat Emptor is the ruling principle then the responsibility of the defective product lies with the buyer, and not the seller. In this case, the Father should have inspected the toy before buying it. Had he noticed it was defective before the sale, he could have changed his mind thus preventing the purchase of a defective toy. However, after the sale has taken place, the seller gives no guarantee of the product and in case of defects, the seller will not be held liable unless otherwise specified.