Question 4 (b)
Hair dye sold despite a disclosed allergy: caveat emptor
12 marks
- Time to write
- About 24 minutes
Question
Question 4 (b) · 12 marksRitika bought a hair dye at a chemist's shop. Before buying, she told the chemist that she had an allergy to a certain chemical generally found in hair dyes. Even so, the chemist sold her a hair dye that had that chemical as an ingredient. As a result, using the hair dye gave Ritika an allergic reaction. Does the Doctrine of Caveat Emptor apply in this case? Also, under the Sale of Goods Act, of 1930, discuss what exceptions there are to the doctrine.
Reworded from the university paper; the task is the same. The original paper belongs to the University of Delhi. See DU's question bank.
Before you write
Read off the question and its marks
Read from the question
- Does the Doctrine…?A case problem: state the rule and its section, apply it to these facts, then answer in one line (yes or no, and why).
Write it in this order
- Read the facts; underline who did what, and the exact question 2 min
- 1 Caveat emptor 2 marks 3 min
- 2 Exceptions 5 marks 8 min
- 3 Application and decision 5 marks 8 min
- Check: section named, answer stated in one line 3 min
Short on time? Trim steps 1–3 evenly rather than skip one: each is capped at its own marks.
Try it first. About 24 minutes for 12 marks. Write it out, then open the solution.
Solution
Hover or tap a marked figure, like 72,000, to see how it is made and where else it appears.
Rule: caveat emptor. The doctrine means "let the buyer beware". Under section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, subject to the Act's provisions there is no implied condition or warranty about the quality of goods or their fitness for any particular purpose sold; the buyer must examine the goods and satisfy himself, and if they turn out unsuitable he cannot hold the seller responsible. Example: A sells pigs to B which, being infected, give typhoid to B's healthy pigs; the seller had no duty to reveal that the pigs were unhealthy.
1Prakash checks the scooter himself before paying—once it is his, the breakdown is too.
Caveat emptorThe buyer must examine the goods and satisfy himself.
2'It must hold out water,' he tells the paint seller, and lets him choose the tin.
Fitness for buyer's purposeRelies on the seller's skill or judgment.
3He buys rice by the sample packet: the sacks must match it.
Sale by sampleThe bulk must correspond with the sample.
4The potter slides a cloth over the crack while selling—that leak stays his fault.
Fraud or concealment by the sellerWhere the seller makes a false representation, or actively conceals a defect.
- Fitness for buyer's purpose (s. 16(1)): where the buyer tells the seller the particular purpose for which he needs the goods and relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the seller's business is to supply such goods.
- Goods bought under a patent or brand name are excluded from this: then there is no implied condition of fitness.
- Sale by description (s. 15): the goods must correspond with the description.
- Merchantable quality (s. 16(2)): goods bought by description from a seller who deals in them must be of merchantable quality.
- Sale by sample (s. 17): the bulk must correspond with the sample, and be free from latent defects not apparent on reasonable examination.
- Sale by sample as well as by description (s. 15): the goods must correspond with both; conformity with the sample does not excuse a departure from the description.
- Usage of trade (s. 16(3)): an implied condition or warranty as to quality may be annexed by trade usage.
- Fraud or concealment by the seller: where the seller makes a false representation, or actively conceals a defect, and the buyer relies on it.
Application. Ritika told the chemist, before buying, that she was allergic to a certain chemical generally found in hair dyes. She thereby made known the particular purpose for which she needed the dye (a dye she could safely use) and relied on the chemist's skill and judgment to supply a suitable one; and it is a chemist's business to supply such goods. The case falls within the exception in section 16(1): there was an implied condition that the hair dye would be reasonably fit for that purpose. The chemist sold her a dye containing the very chemical, so the condition is broken. (This distinguishes the case from one where a buyer with an unusual sensitivity does not disclose it to the seller, where the buyer cannot complain.)
Decision. The doctrine of caveat emptor does not apply. The chemist is liable for breach of the implied condition as to fitness, and Ritika can claim damages for the injury caused by the allergic reaction.
Where the 12 marks sit
| # | Component | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Caveat emptor | 2 |
| 2 | Exceptions | 5 |
| 3 | Application and decision | 5 |
| Total | 12 |
Report a problemopens an email to admin@getkunji.com with the question ID7503-Q4balready filled in.