Law: MIKE vs FF LTD - Case Study Example

Download file "Case Law: MIKE vs FF LTD" to see previous pages... But here the rule related to the ample scope of "caveat emptor "plays an important role in impeding the purchaser in taking the action against the vendor for the disposal of defective constructions.
The doctrine of Caveat emptor -Let the buyer beware- involves the purchaser's risk to have the premises surveyed and to determine whether they are fit for the purpose intended.
Let us write or edit the essay on your topic "Case Law: MIKE vs FF LTD" with a personal 20% discount.. Try it now
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.
It is an obligation in any commercial transaction that the seller is to allow the buyer prior to entering into an agreement to inspect the goods in order to ensure that the goods to be purchased are free from any unknown defects. Under this circumstance the buyer should investigate whatever the goods purchased, whether it is movable or immovable, are free from any defect before the actual agreement is completed, so as to protect him from any future risk arising from a defective product. i.e. the implication is that the purchaser/buyer after such inspection will shoulder the responsibilities of any risk after the completion of the said sale or purchase agreement.
This aspect is clearly enumerate...
his circumstance the buyer should investigate whatever the goods purchased, whether it is movable or immovable, are free from any defect before the actual agreement is completed, so as to protect him from any future risk arising from a defective product. i.e. the implication is that the purchaser/buyer after such inspection will shoulder the responsibilities of any risk after the completion of the said sale or purchase agreement.

This aspect is clearly enumerated in the case McGowan v. Harrison (2).In this case it was held that in the sale of property the purchaser is presumed to have examined the property and to have taken it with knowledge of all its defects. Furthermore, the vendor is further protected by the rule of evidence which limits proof as
to the terms of the contract to the written document itself. In the present context, it is well
to note that this is the rule even when the real property sold supports a completed building: in the absence of a warranty (express, or implied from the conduct of the parties), the vendor is under no duty to see that the house is sound and fit for human habitation.

It is to be remembered that the doctrine of caveat emptor does not lay down any obligation in the seller to point out the defects in goods to be sold. The only exception
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Caveat emptor Vs Khiyai al -"aib" Dictonomy Mohd.Masum Billah Vol.13 no.3 1998 278- 299
2. McGowan Vs Harrison 1941 I.R 331
3 ...Download file "Case Law: MIKE vs FF LTD" to see next pagesRead More