Whether the doctrine of buyers beware should be fit to impune the company from its

liability?

The doctrine of caveat emptor means "buyer beware." It basically conveys the message that
the buyer must protect his or her own interests when making a purchase, in other words, the
buyer cannot make a claim against the seller if the item is revealed to be defective or
unsuitable for the intended purposes, or if the buyer mistakenly evaluates the condition of the
item.

As per the doctrine of caveat emptor it is contended that plaintiff had the upmost
responsibility to check whether the particular product that he is using is suitable for him or
not, it is wholly on the plaintiff to make sure that the constituents of Acta-G capsules is well
suited for him or not.

Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 193014 incorporates the rule of caveat emptor as
follows: “Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time being in
force, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular
purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale”. It means the seller is not bound by law to
supply the goods which are fit for any particular purpose or possess any particular quality. “It
was IIUC Studies, Vol. 10 & 11 206 for the buyer to make himself acquainted with qualities
and defects of the goods which he contemplated purchasing”.

Similar happened in the Gursharan singh v. m/s Big bazaar, MP pahwa, the complainant has
filed Gursharan singh complaint u/s 12 of consumer protection act, 1986 against opposite
party m/s big bazaar. The complaint is barred by principle of Caveat Emptor i.e, buyer
beware enumerated u/s 16 of sales of goods act.

It is the buyer's responsibility to examine the item or property and evaluate the condition or
quality of it. At the time of the transaction, the buyer must ensure that the item is suitable for
their needs. In general, items are purchased once the buyer confirms their quality and
purpose. Therefore, the buyer purchases at their own risk and to their best judgment.
Ultimately, if the items are not sufficient for the buyer's needs, there is nobody else to blame.
The buyer must deal with the consequences of their selection.

It is contended that Acta-G holds no liability when it comes to whether the capsules where
suitable for him or not, Acta-G capsules were advertised to show the potential customers its
benefits and to attract the customers to the benefit of Acta-G capsules amidst of tough
competition that pharmaceuticals companies are facing. As a rationale manufacturer, every
manufacturer tries to show the benefits of its product and differentiate its product from other
competitive products. Customers are under no force to choose particular product and if they
do so it is solely their discretion and decision, manufacturing company cannot be held liable
for that.

The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 deals with one of the important branches of contract especially
the moveable goods with which the general people in the world deal every day. In dealing
with the goods proposed for sale must be free from any known or unknown defect of either
party of the contract of sale. Regarding the sale of defective goods the buyer has some
remedies against the default seller in both common law. In common law it is known as
“Caveat Emptor” (Buyer be aware). It is the general rule that the buyer should have an
opportunity to satisfy himself as to the quality of the goods for his particular purpose and in
absence of any query or unskilled test by the buyer, the seller is not to be liable for anything.

The general principle of law in common law system is that it aids the vigilant and not the
dormant. Therefore, if the buyer makes a bad choice without exercising the option of
inspection, he must curse himself for his folly in absence of any misunderstanding on his
part.

In the case of thukkaram vs shanti varadhrajan, it was observed that the doctrine of caveat
emptor does not mean either in law or in latin that the buyer must take chances whereas it
means that the buyer must take care ,before purchasing the product the buyer should be
vigilant about his needs as well as about the product.

It is contended that plaintiff was not forced to take Acta-G capsules but he purchased it based
on his discretion and company should not be held liable for his decision as it was plaintiff’s
duty to check the suitability of the capsule.

In common law, section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is applicable in India. “The seller
is not bound to supply the goods which should be suit for any particular purpose or which
should possess any particular quality. It is the buyer’s duty to select the goods of this
requirement. After conclusion of sale the purchaser cannot recover the price or damages from
the seller.”

The right of the buyer to examine the goods was originated in the case of Chandelor vs.
Lopus in the early of 17th century and later on developed by different cases. In 17th century
mutual rights and duties of the seller and the buyer were embodied in the case Chandelor vs.
Lopus.4 The case Chandelor vs. Lopus demonstrates evolving notions of warranty, and the
contract legal theory under the English common law specially the concept of caveat emptor.
In this case the defendant (Chandelor) was a person who sold articles made of gold and had a
special knowledge in precious stones. This defendant owned a stone which he affirmed to the
plaintiff Lopus was a bezar stone and sold it to Lopus for 100 (one hundred) pound. Lopus
subsequently found that the stone possessed no healing powers (the stone forms in animal‟s
intestinal system and was believed to have magical healing properties) and sent Chandelor
before the King‟s Bench. The court held that the quality of bezar which he had not expressly
warranted was a risk which the buyer must assume and there was no fraud in selling the stone
as a bezar, so long as the seller did not expressly warrant it to be one.

In the case of M S T C limited vs M/S Jain traders and ors. It was contented that the caveat
emptor is the original rule in contract. A vendor is under no duty to communicate the
existence, even of latent defects in his wares unless by act or implication he represents such
defects not to exist.

The doctrine of caveat emptor simply reflects a combination of contempt for the capacity of
people to make their own judgements about the value of medications and a paternalistic
notion of protecting vulnerable consumers from the rapacious pharmaceutical corporations.
Customers could then make their own choices and, in the ancient spirit of ‘buyer beware’,
look out for the adverse effects. If people believe that dieting aids and birth control pills, or
vitamins and Viagra, or statins and SSRIs, are a good bargain, let them buy them, just as they
buy paracetamol and aspirin, beer and cigarettes, or any other commodity.

It is highly contended that pharmaceutical companies should be set free to endorse their
product as it does not create any forceful obligation on the people to purchase them but it
only creates awareness among people regarding the various options that are available to them
and people should be left free to decide what is good for them with due diligence and with
prescription, if required. Every human have its own needs depending on their nature and
health so they should be the real judge for themselves to decide for themselves.