Was this, at one time, actually a principle of law? I remember hearing it quite a lot in my youth (mid-late 60’s) and always thought it meant that if you got screwed by a business that it was your tough luck. You don’t hear the phrase anymore, but I have heard some business types bemoan its passing.
So, do any of you SDMB tycoons know exactly what was meant by the phrase and what excesses led to its demise?
No tears now, just the cold hard facts. 
Opinions, I mean.
Peace,
mangeorge
By googling the Latin translation, “caveat emptor,” I found a few examples where it is apparently in use today: it is the guiding principle behind sales of used homes in Alabama, for instance. I can’t find anything definite yet, but so far it looks as if “caveat emptor” was the general theme of the open market prior to modern statutory laws that require some basic quality level of (some) merchandise.
I haven’t found anything very specific, but there are a hundred sites willing to tell me that “caveat emptor” means “let the buyer beware.” Thanks, we knew that already. 
Don’t know if that helps, mangegorge. Maybe google that with “implied warranty” and see what comes up?
Kinda. Suppose you bought a second hand car and drove it away, then the following week the car dies on you. You can’t go back to the previous owner and claim your money back.
You saw the car, you checked the engine over, you paid the money - the car is now legally yours. Since you are now the legal owner, all rights and privileges that come with being the legal owner pass to you from the previous owner. Also all the costs and obligations pass to you as well.
The second you go past the point of sale, you are responsible for what happens not the previous owner.
This is I think the general principle at common law - caveat emptor. But that doesn’t mean that you never have rights once you’ve bought something. For example, food manufacturers have to make their food edible. If you get poisoned after eating their food, you can still take them to court since they owe you a duty of care.
Also suppose you bought a new computer but when you got it home you found there was something wrong with it then you could get a refund. But these kind of things were introduced into law by statute (or case law). They are exceptions to the general rule, which is caveat emptor.
ie anything not specifically covered by statute or case law is presumed to be subject to caveat emptor. As mentioned by Fish, it’s an important principle in relation to house sales. You buy a house but then a couple of weeks later the government tell you they are going to knock down your house to make way for a new road. It was up to you (or rather your lawyer) to discover this about the house before you bought it. You bought the house “as seen”, you had the chance to check up on all this beforehand. If you didn’t check properly then that’s not the sellers problem, it’s yours.
You might be able to sue your lawyer for negligence and recover the value of the house but you can’t force the previous owner to take his house back and give you the money.
So whenever you buy anything, caveat emptor is the general rule. But it has been modified (in some areas) by various statutes and case law.
I think that’s the general idea although if I’m wrong someone will be along to correct me hopefully.
Should mention though that there has been talk of reversing this (here in the UK) and putting the obligation of full disclosure on the seller rather than the buyer. That is, that the seller should do all the work and reveal all the information about his house to the buyer, including any defects or problems.
I don’t know how far this talk has got here but it’s possible some jurisdictions in the US already do this. But even if they do, it still doesn’t affect the principle of caveat emptor - it’s just another example of an exception to the rule, I would think. It just means that caveat emptor doesn’t apply to house sales any more, but it still applies to other areas of retail.
That’s what I would say but I’m open to correction if anyone else knows better though.
Sold an inherited house last year. There was a form we had to fill out that basically asked if, as far as we knew, were any of a long list of possible problems applicable to the house. Things like, does the roof leak, do the appliances work, does the heat work. Since my sister and I had never lived in the house, we just answered “don’t know.” However, if it had been our residence, if we lied about any of that stuff, the buyer would have recourse. Beyond that, it’s up to the buyer to check out everything he’s concerned about. Ergo, a limited caveat emptor.
Not really. For most durable goods that are commonly resold a degree of protection against dishonest or unfair sales is either explicitly provided for in statute or guaranteed by existing case law.
I think people now are more cynical and less willing to shut up/do as you’re told than they were in the fifties. Post-war americans were a pretty docile group in general. Many were reluctant to “rock the boat”.
Unions and consumer advocates, like Nader and Horowitz, had a lot to do with changing attitudes.
I remember coming across this term when I, as a young Ivysprig, read Gone With the Wind. Scarlett wanted to rename her late husband’s store, and asked Rhett to come up with a creative name, ideally using the word “emporium.”
Rhett suggested “Caveat Emptorium,” calmly telling her this would go well with the items she was selling. Scarlett went as far as to get a sign painted, before the more educated Ashley illuminated her.
To me, it’s a warning that you should do your research before making a major purchase.
Actually, mangeorge (sorry about misspelling your name earlier), I was guessing the decay of “caveat emptor” came from the influx of then-suspicious goods from China and Japan in the post-war period. What better way to protect our markets against them dang furriners than to post laws requiring that goods meet certain standards? Mind you, that’s just a guess.
Or maybe it was a battle between interstate commerce and free speech: that is, the ol’ truth in advertising refrain. Is it legal to use one’s free speech to make claims about a product that are not true? Considering the heyday of the snake oil salesmen was thirty or fifty years (or more) before WWII, maybe we’re thinking in too-recent terms. I dunno.
Of course, I haven’t heard any businessmen personally who bemoan the loss of “caveat emptor.” Most of them that I have known seem to have had relatively high standards: if we notice a flaw, we fix it, even if we think the customer might not see it.
For the sake of simplicity, let’s pick one product I remember specifically; furniture.
There was (is?) a large, local furniture store in Bakersfield when I was growing up whose primary product was credit. They pushed high interest credit to lower income people, and offered junk furniture at moderate (not low) prices. If you offered to pay cash, the sales person would discourage you and push “easy” credit. Of course the furniture would fall apart long before it was paid off, but if you complained they would threaten to call the contract due because you had destroyed the security for the loan. Most families in my part of town had bricks and blocks and such propping up their dilapidated furniture. And old blankets covering worn out upholstery.
In court they claimed “caveat emptor” and won. As though customers culd disassemble and inspect the product. This was around 1955-60 or so.
Eventually the system caught up with them, and they did get into some trouble, but I think they’re still in business.
“Caveat Emptor” is what’s known as common law. That means it applies when no other specific legislation has been made to cover a particular situation.
As others have indicated, there are fewer and fewer sales that don’t have some regulations applied to them. So “Let The Buyer Beware” is now rarely completely true.