Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The modern trend in the U.S. is that the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose applies in the real-estate context to only the sale of new residential housing by a builder-seller and that the caveat emptor rule applies to all other real-estate sale situations (e.g. homeowner to buyer). [3]
The rule usually stays valid even if the purchaser does not know that the seller has no right to claim ownership of the object of the transaction (a bona fide purchaser); however, in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give ...
caveat: May he beware When used by itself, refers to a qualification, or warning. caveat emptor: Let the buyer beware In addition to the general warning, also refers to a legal doctrine wherein a buyer could not get relief from a seller for defects present on property which rendered it unfit for use. / ˈ k æ v i æ t ˈ ɛ m p t ɔːr ...
Organ, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 178 (1817), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the rule that buyers need not disclose advantageous information to sellers. This rule should not be confused with either caveat emptor —a rule placing the burden of due diligence on the purchaser of goods—or caveat venditor ...
Caveat emptor Chandelor v Lopus (1603) 79 ER 3 [ 1 ] is a famous case in the common law of England . [ 2 ] It stands for the distinction between warranties and mere affirmations and announced the rule of caveat emptor (buyer beware).
Laidlaw v. Organ, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 178 (1817), established the rule of caveat emptor in the United States. The Supreme Court's opinion can be interpreted to mean that withholding information calculated to deceive the other party can cause a contract to be void on equitable grounds.
By Nate Raymond (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court has halted enforcement of an anti-money laundering law that requires corporate entities to disclose the identities of their real beneficial owners ...
Market overt or marché ouvert (Law French for "open market") is an English legal concept originating in medieval times governing subsequent ownership of stolen goods. [1] The rule was abolished in England and Wales in 1994 but it is still good law in some common law jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and British Columbia.