Argument against the statement:
In this case, Lewis is suing Averay for the value of the car, despite Averay being an innocent party who bought the car in good faith. This situation exemplifies the need for consumers to have protections and be able to rely on the principle of caveat emptor.
Caveat emptor is a Latin term meaning "let the buyer beware," which places the onus on the consumer to thoroughly inspect and evaluate a product before purchase. However, this principle is based on the assumption of equal knowledge and information between the buyer and the seller. In this case, Averay had no reason to suspect any fraudulent activity as the car was sold to him by someone who had seemingly genuine identification and documents.
If consumers had to fulfill their obligations under a contract irrespective of any mistake of law or fact, it would place an unfair burden on them. They would have to bear the consequences of dishonest sellers and fraudulent activities, potentially leaving them in financial hardship.
In this case, it is Lewis who failed to exercise due diligence in accepting a valueless check as payment for the car. While it can be argued that Averay should have done his own investigation before purchasing the car, it would be unreasonable to expect every buyer to thoroughly investigate every transaction they make. Such a burden would stifle commerce and undermine the trust and efficiency of commercial transactions.
Instead of placing the burden solely on consumers, the legal system should provide protections against fraudulent activities and place liability on those who engage in deceptive practices. Averay, being an innocent party, should not be held responsible for Lewis's failure to properly vet the buyer. By upholding the principle of caveat emptor too rigidly, we risk putting innocent consumers at a disadvantage and discouraging fair and equitable transactions.
Using a case example, make an argument for or against the following statement:
Consumers need to take the statement Caveat Emptor more seriously and fulfil their obligations under a contract irrespective of mistake of law or mistake of fact.
Article source: Lewis sold his car to a man claiming to be the famous English actor, Richard Greene. The man showed a (fake) studio pass with his name and details to Lewis to prove identity. He then ‘bought’ the car with a valueless cheque. Before Lewis had a chance to cash the cheque and discover the fraud, the man on sold the car to Averay, who bought the car without knowing of the fraud (buying in good faith). Lewis sued Averay for the value of the car.
1 answer