This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. Caveat emptor is Latin for "Let the buyer beware". Generally caveat emptor is the property law doctrine that controls the sale of real property after the date of closing. [edit] Explanation Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, the buyer could not recover from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the seller actively concealed latent defects. The modern trend in the US, however, is one of the Implied Warranty of Fitness that applies only to the sale of new residential housing by a builder-seller and the rule of Caveat Emptor applies to all other sale situations (i.e. homeowner to buyer).(See Stambovsky v. Ackley, 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 (N.Y. App. 1991)) Many other jurisdictions have provisions similar to this. Before statutory law, the buyer had no warranty of the quality of goods. In many jurisdictions, the law now requires that goods must be of "merchantable quality". However, this implied warranty can be difficult to enforce, and may not apply to all products. Hence, buyers are still advised to be cautious. In addition to the quality of the merchandise, this phrase also applies to the return policy. In most jurisdictions, there is no legal requirement for the vendor to provide a refund or exchange. In many cases, the vendor will not provide a refund but will provide a credit. In the case of software, movies and other copyrighted material many vendors will only do a direct exchange for another copy of the exact same title. Most stores require proof of purchase and impose time limits on exchanges or refunds. However, some larger chain stores will do exchanges or refunds at any time with or without proof of purchase- although they usually require a form of picture ID and place quantity or dollar limitations on such returns. Laidlaw v. Organ, a decision written in 1817 by Chief Justice John Marshall, is believed by scholars to have been the first U.S. Supreme Court case which laid down the rule of caveat emptor in U.S. law. In the UK, consumer law has moved away from the caveat emptor model, with laws passed that have enhanced consumer rights and allow greater leeway to return goods that do not meet legal standards of acceptance (Trader's Guide to Civil Law. Trading Standards. Retrieved on 2007-11-29.) Many companies operating in the UK will allow customers to return goods within a specified period for a full refund, even if there is no problem with the product. [edit] Caveat venditor Caveat venditor is Latin for "let the seller beware". It is a counter to caveat emptor, and suggests that sellers too can be deceived in a market transaction. This forces the seller to take responsibility for the product, and discourages sellers from selling products of unreasonable quality. In the landmark case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916), New York Court Appeals Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo established that privity of duty is no longer required in regard to a lawsuit for product liability against the seller. This case is predominantly regarded as the origin of caveat venditor as it pertains to modern tort law in US. [edit] External links MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company (Opinion of the Court) v ? d ? e Legal doctrines Attractive nuisance · Calculus of negligence · Caveat emptor · Caveat venditor · Contra proferentem · Duty of care · Eggshell skull · Fair use · First-sale doctrine · Good-faith exception · Living tree doctrine · Ignorantia juris non excusat · Implied powers · Implied terms of a contract · Odious debt · Plain view doctrine · Proximate cause · Res ipsa loquitur · Sovereign immunity · Stare decisis or Precedence rule · Standard of care · Unclean hands · Vicarious liability ·