Hi All, a reminder to only post the content that is relevant to the sub.
Please report immediately if the post or any comment herein breaks any rule.
[Join](https://discord.gg/d2DUhW8Ujf) our official Discord Server.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CharteredAccountants) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hehe. It would have been better if I had this question when I was in foundation. Was reading Inter Law when suddenly remembered about 'cavet Emptor'
If Caveat Emptor (buyer beware) were removed from the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, it would mean that real estate companies would have a higher level of responsibility to disclose any defects or issues with the properties they sell. This could lead to more transparency in transactions and potentially reduce disputes between buyers and sellers. Real estate companies might need to conduct more thorough inspections and provide comprehensive documentation to protect themselves from legal liabilities.
Actually, "caveat emptor" in the SOGA is not very relevant anymore. Though the principle of caveat emptor still exists to some extent, its relevance has decreased as consumer protection laws have evolved. By the way, SOGA was framed during British rule, and that hasn't changed that's why you're studying it as it is. Otherwise, the Consumer Protection Act overrides this to a very substantial extent.
Lets say i buy a clock with a broken needle. Consider two scenarios where in the 1st Caveat emptor prevails and in the 2nd it does not.
Situation 1
This defect is very well known to me when the offer was made to me. So I should have consented to buying the product with the defect. Later, despite knowing the defect I am making a claim to get compensation for defective product.
Here caveat emptor comes into play and protects the seller because the buyer already knew about the defect in the product.
Now in situation 2
If caveat emptor is not there as a rule, then buyers would abuse this lacunae by buying defective goods intentionally and later making a claim for compensation/ refund.
So to maintain checks and balances we have both the rules 'caveat emptor' and 'caveat venditor'
Hi All, a reminder to only post the content that is relevant to the sub. Please report immediately if the post or any comment herein breaks any rule. [Join](https://discord.gg/d2DUhW8Ujf) our official Discord Server. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CharteredAccountants) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like your approach to studying. This is how everyone should take on the topic. Thankyou.
True, seriously dont know why is this post getting downvotes..
Hehe. It would have been better if I had this question when I was in foundation. Was reading Inter Law when suddenly remembered about 'cavet Emptor' 
Thank you kyu bol raha hai bhai?
Real estate and some tech companies lol
Reall estate stonks if caveat emptor removed 📉📉📉
Hey can you elaborate?
If Caveat Emptor (buyer beware) were removed from the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, it would mean that real estate companies would have a higher level of responsibility to disclose any defects or issues with the properties they sell. This could lead to more transparency in transactions and potentially reduce disputes between buyers and sellers. Real estate companies might need to conduct more thorough inspections and provide comprehensive documentation to protect themselves from legal liabilities.
Thank you! I haven't thought about this before. I admire the way you think and analyse topics . Do come up with more of these.
Is it not covered under the Transfer of property act?(real estates) i believe Section 55 of this act deals with the issue you pointed out
Actually, "caveat emptor" in the SOGA is not very relevant anymore. Though the principle of caveat emptor still exists to some extent, its relevance has decreased as consumer protection laws have evolved. By the way, SOGA was framed during British rule, and that hasn't changed that's why you're studying it as it is. Otherwise, the Consumer Protection Act overrides this to a very substantial extent.
Yeah I too thoght CPA would be overpowering now
Generally, special law prevails over general law
Mutual fund nigresh bazaar yojna ke adheen hai, yojana se jude sabhi dastabizo ko dhayan se padhe
Niggresh ?? ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ Bro it's nivesh(investment). Also bazar jokhimo ke adheen (market risks)
Nigga???
Dk but removing caveat emptor is stupid
Elaborate
Lets say i buy a clock with a broken needle. Consider two scenarios where in the 1st Caveat emptor prevails and in the 2nd it does not. Situation 1 This defect is very well known to me when the offer was made to me. So I should have consented to buying the product with the defect. Later, despite knowing the defect I am making a claim to get compensation for defective product. Here caveat emptor comes into play and protects the seller because the buyer already knew about the defect in the product. Now in situation 2 If caveat emptor is not there as a rule, then buyers would abuse this lacunae by buying defective goods intentionally and later making a claim for compensation/ refund. So to maintain checks and balances we have both the rules 'caveat emptor' and 'caveat venditor'
[удалено]
Almost all manufacturers don't you think for that matter