ARTICLE 13

name the cases that led to the development in the caveat emptor rule in Ghana

1. Rockson and Armah following the uk case of Bartlett v. Sidney Marcus 2..Yirenkyi v Tormekpey 3. Continental Plastics Engineering Co. Ltd v IMC Industries Technik GMBH

in what year was the phrase caveat emptor first used and by who

1534, by Fizherbert in Boke of Husbandrie

what is caveat emptor

Caveat Emptor is a Latin expression which literally means 'let the buyer beware'.11 It is a mercatoria principle which recognizes a right of a buyer to inspect goods he or she intends to buy failure to exercise such right, the seller would not be liable for any defects in the goods in the absence of a warranty. The principle of Caveat Emptor thus explains the relationship between a buyer and a seller relative to the apportionment of risk in the goods traded in when it comes to purchasing goods from a seller. Under this principle, the seller is not obligated to disclose any defects or problems with the item being sold, and the buyer is expected to assume the risk of any defects that may exist.

where does the similarily reside between the case of Rockson and Armah and barlett v. Sidney Marcus

In the Bartlett case (supra) there was a clutch defect which was known to the parties though they underrated the extent of deficiency. In the present case the clutch defect was known as well as a disturbing hum in the engine. What was not known was the degree of damage. To this extent the similarity of the Bartlett case with the present cannot be missed. Bartlett v. Marcus (supra) substantially turned on the use to which the car had been subjected before rejection - one whole month. If a car has been in use for a whole month it cannot be confidently urged that it is "no use for the purpose for which a car is usually used." A second-hand car must be taken as it is and not elevated into a new car with all the expectations of factory freshness.

Sarpong v. Silver Star Auto Limited

In the case of Sarpong v. Silver Star Auto Limited, the plaintiff purchased a new car from the defendant with a 2-year unlimited warranty. The car experienced multiple breakdowns, and the plaintiff sued for a replacement. The case of Sarpong v. Silver Star Auto Limited is a recent and significant case in Ghana that clarifies the Ghanaian position on the doctrine of Caveat Venditor. In this case, the court held that under section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act, the seller has an implied duty to deliver goods of the right quality and fitness, and this duty is applied when a buyer complains of defective goods under Ghanaian law. The court also emphasized that the duty imposed on the seller is the same for both second-hand and new goods, and the Ghanaian law approaches the sales of goods with a Caveat Venditor approach rather than a Caveat Emptor approach. Therefore, the court's position can be clearly put in the perspective of section 13, being a Caveat Venditor and not caveat emptor. This decision shows that Ghanaian courts are embracing the Caveat Venditor doctrine, which places a heavier duty of care on sellers compared to the Caveat Emptor doctrine.

what does section 13 of the sale of goods act say

Section 13 of the Act provides that there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for a particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.

how has the caveat emptor principle been accepted in the US law

The Caveat Emptor doctrine has been widely accepted in American Jurisprudence, and throughout the 19th century, the US Supreme Court firmly established the principle that buyers are responsible for their own needs in business transactions. The Stuart v. Wilkins case held a vendor liable for a hidden defect in a female horse despite the Caveat Emptor rule. However, in a free market system, the consumer has absolute control over production under the Caveat Emptor rule, and they can either approve or disapprove of buying goods and services based on their needs. This leads to competition among products and allows the buyer to decide which product fits their purpose.

what is the nature of ghana's position on the caveat emptor principle

The Ghanaian Sale of Goods Act of 1962 mirrors the English legislation on Commercial law known as the Sale of Goods Act 1893. However, some critics have pointed out that the Ghanaian Act is outdated and needs to be updated to reflect current economic dispensation, especially since the United Kingdom, which Ghana copied from, has itself made enormous legislative interventions to protect the consumer. thus ghana is now shifting more away from caveat emptor to caveat venditor

what is the stance of the civil law and common law on caveat emptor

The case of Hoe v. Sanborn established that the Civil law rule of caveat venditor (let the seller beware) applies to articles that are general and widely used in commerce within the country, while the Common law rule of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) originated in a commercial age and was meant to promote trade freedom. Although the Common law rule is generally applied in cases of sales, there are still instances where the Civil law regime could prevent cases of fraud. Some argue that it would be more just if the seller is held responsible for latent defects, but it is not practical to discriminate among various articles in sales. Therefore, the Common law maxim of caveat emptor is generally applied to all cases.

What is the legal implication of caveat emptor

The legal implication of caveat emptor is that it places the burden of verifying the quality and suitability of goods on the buyer, rather than on the seller. In other words, the seller is not responsible for defects or deficiencies in the goods, and the buyer has no recourse against the seller if the goods turn out to be defective or unsuitable for their intended purpose, except in certain limited circumstances.

why is was the rule of caveat emptor defective as relates to modern times

The rule of Caveat Emptor predominantly had that attribute that the time because at that time, markets were overt and buyers had ample opportunity to examine and inspect goods they desired to purchase for quality and for whether they were fit for the purpose for which they were bought. Given the current practice of sale of goods where goods are packaged, sealed and are in the custody of the producer, and even sent to a buyer without the buyer having the opportunity to even see the goods at first hand, there is the need to protect a prospective buyer

Barlett v Sidney Marcus

The seller was a car dealer, and the buyer purchased a second-hand car from him. Before they finalized the contract of sale for the vehicle, the seller made sure that the buyer was informed that the car had a defective clutch. Because of the defective state of the car, the seller lowered the price that the buyer was required to pay in order to account for this. However, the problem with the clutch turned out to be significantly more serious and required a significantly greater amount of money to repair than the buyer had originally anticipated it would. The buyer attempted to return the car on the grounds that it did not meet the quality standard he was entitled to expect. Lord Denning MR stated that: 'A buyer should realize that when he buys a second-hand car, defects may appear sooner or later.

what happened in the case of Rockson v. Armah

This case involves a sale of a second-hand Mercedes Benz car by the appellant to the respondent for ¢3,200.00. The respondent made cash payments of ¢2,200.00 and remitted two post-dated cheques of ¢500.00 each for the balance of the purchase price. Upon delivery, the car was found to have been involved in an accident and had suffered considerable damage. The appellant accepted liability and agreed to repair the car. However, after the respondent had used the car for almost two months, he repudiated the contract on the ground that he had discovered latent defects in the car. The court held that the respondent was not justified in repudiating the contract because the retention of a second-hand car for almost two months was unreasonable, and it was not thereafter open to the respondent to avoid the transaction. Furthermore, the class of the goods and the status of the parties ruled out any obligations as to conditions or warranties being incorporated into the contract of sale, and even if it were assumed that the subsequent state of the car at the time of sale constituted a breach of condition, the respondent must be presumed to have waived his right by keeping the car for too long.

Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd

Where buyers rely on sellers to make up goods to the buyer's specifications out of ingredients to be obtained by the sellers, failure by the sellers to ensure that those ingredients are of a suitable quality may constitute a breach of the Sale of Goods Act 1893s.14 (mink case)

what happened in the case of yirenkyi v. Tormekpe

Yirenkyi v Tormekpey involved the purchase of a second-hand Toyota truck. The buyer spent money to repair the truck but the seller refused to refund the cost of repairs. The trial court held that the seller breached the implied condition that the vehicle should be reasonably fit for the purpose it was required, but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision. The court applied the common law principle of Caveat emptor.

what are latent defects

a good is defective if it does not attain the standard that a person would generally be entitled to expect. they are good which the owner had no prior knowledge of and those which couldnt have been discovered through reasonable observation or inspection

in what case was the principle of caveat emptor first recognized

chandelor v lopus (benzoar stone); in this case the defendant sold a benzoar stone known to have healing properties to the buyer. the buyer discovered the stone had no such healing properties and sued. the court held that there was no element of fraud since the seller gave no express warranty hence risk must be borne by the buyer.

what is the position of england on the caveat emptor rule

it appears that England has moved away from the rule of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) and towards the rule of caveat venditor (let the seller beware), at least in the context of the Sale of Goods Act. The implied terms in Sections 12 to 15 of the Sale of Goods Act, which require that goods be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described, suggest that the law places some responsibility on the seller to ensure that the goods they are selling meet certain standards. Additionally, the case of Bartlett v. Sidney Marcus Ltd, cited in the passage, suggests that a buyer cannot complain about a defect that was drawn to their attention before entering into a contract, further placing responsibility on the seller to disclose any known defects or issues with the goods being sold.

what is the position in the civil law regarding the caveat emptor rule

the protection of buyers against latent defects in civil law, particularly in the Roman and German legal systems. In Roman law, buyers have the right to rescind the contract or ask for abatement of the price if there are hidden defects and no warranty was provided by the seller. Meanwhile, the German law gives the buyer a limited period to inspect the merchandise and protects them if their ignorance of defects was not due to gross negligence. The current position enables contracting parties to customize sales contracts to extend the obligations of the seller beyond the statutory or implied warranty. Overall, the buyer's protection against latent defects varies among civil law countries, but there is a trend towards extending seller obligations beyond the caveat emptor principle. thus caveat venditor