A goes to B's shop and purchases silk saree thinking that it is made of Banarsi silk. The shopkeeper knows that A's thinking is wrong. He however does not correct A's impression. Later on, when A discovers that the saree

Doctrine of Caveat Emptor "Caveat emptor" is a Latin word that means "let the buyer beware". This principle states that it is for the buyer to satisfy himself that the goods which he is purchasing are of the quality which he requires. If he buys goods for a particular purpose, he must satisfy himself that they are fit for that purpose. The doctrine of caveat emptor is embodied in Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which states that "subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time being in force, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale". In simple words, it is not the seller's duty to give to the buyer the goods which are fit for a suitable purpose of the buyer. If he makes a wrong selection, he cannot blame the seller if the goods turn out to be defective or do not serve his purpose. The principle was applied in the case of Ward vs. Hobbs, (1878) 4 A.C. 13 , where certain pigs were sold by auction and no warranty was given by seller in respect of any fault or error of description. The buyer paid the price for healthy pigs. But they were ill and all but one died of typhoid fever. They also infected some of the buyer's own pigs. It was held that there was no implied condition or warranty that the pigs were of good health. It was the buyer's duty to satisfy himself regarding the health of the pigs. Generally, it is no part of the seller's duty in a contract of sale of goods to give to the buyer an article suitable for a particular purpose, or of a particular quality. Also, the seller is under no obligation to point out the defects in the goods. It is the duty of the buyer to thoroughly examine the goods or to make known to the seller the purpose for which goods are required before he buys. If he makes the wrong choice, he cannot blame the seller. In the given situation, A himself has made the selection without depending upon the skills and judgment of the seller. Therefore, A cannot avoid the contract.