send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
PRINCIPLE: Caveat emptor, “let the buyer beware”, stands for the practical skill and judgment of the buyer in his choice of goods for purchase. It is the business of the buyer to judge for himself that what he buys has its use and worth for him. Once bought and if the buy is not up to his expectations then he alone is to blame and no one else.
FACTS: For the purpose of making uniform for the employees, “A” bought dark blue coloured cloth from B but did not disclose to the seller the specific purpose of the said purchase. When uniforms were prepared and used by the employees the cloth was found unfit. However, the cloth was fit for a variety of other purposes (such as, making caps. boots and carriage lining. etc). Applying the afore-stated principle which of the following derivations is CORRECT as regards remedy available to A in the given situation?
A (the buyer) would succeed in getting some remedy from B (the seller)
A (the buyer) would not succeed in getting any remedy from B (the seller).
A (the buyer) would succeed in getting refund from B (the seller)
A (the buyer) would succeed in getting a different variety of cloth from B (the seller) but not the refund.
The facts are loosely based on Donoghue v. Stevenson. Here, the can is made of tin, and hence opaque. In such a case, it is impossible for the vendor – the café – to determine the contents of the can, and hence they wouldn’t have been liable. Only the manufacturer could have ascertained that, and since they failed to do the same, they will be liable.
By: kartikey ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses