caveat emptor

or buyer beware. It is defined as “The axiom or principle in commerce that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying.”

I have to confess that I have never been comfortable with this relationship. Whether it was the buyer’s remorse one feels after buying something one feels is a “must” while later realizing “want” doesn’t even really cut it. Or perhaps it’s the time you bought something that didn’t function the way you expected it to. Or maybe it just doesn’t measure up to the picture. I’ve had all of these things happen, and I’m sure you have too. And we say to ourselves “I guess that’s what I get.” Some of us demand the store take back this product, but for the most part, we simply take it.

But this fundamental aspect of the system, held for decades, is based on the principle that a consumer can be reasonably knowledgeable about a product. That level of knowledge is transitory, of course, and fluctuates based on the court’s support of the economic interest of the people or of the manufacturer.

But why should any of us be considered to have a reasonable knowledge about a product, let alone reasonable knowledge about anything? If I listen to the advertisers, Coke tastes better than Pepsi while at the same time Pepsi tastes better than Coke. And each is cooler than the other. And each is more popular than the other. Taste tests have proven both superior. In a modern world, both would be charged with lying, since only one could be “best”. In a postmodern world, we have to deal with each being “best” from their respective points of view. But according to our government, these are acceptable ads, because caveat emptor!

But we can all drink a Coke and a Pepsi and compare their relative effectiveness. But what about the things we both expect and require assistance in: significant purchases (cars, homes, etc.), healthcare, drugs and medicines? What of the things in which we depend on the experts (realtors, doctors, scientists, etc.) and when they become sellers of products? Or worse, what of the inherent dangers of a product of which we know nothing and are expected to know nothing? Writing the name of a phthalate on a plastic bottle will not communicate the danger that plastic possesses. Where is the support for the buyer when the seller is not required to inform him/her about anything that would prevent him/her from purchasing that product? Caveat emptor?

I was inspired by this article by Ellen Goodman called “The Do-It-Yourself Economy” which explores all of the repercussions of our taking on the labor once done by others: first as a cost-savings measure, but then accepted as normal (and requiring a later addition-by-subtraction?). The truth in the article (of which there are many, actually—you should definitely read it) is that we aren’t cut out to be responsible for ourselves in this way to this extreme degree. We aren’t all simultaneously the lawyers, estate planners, and accountants necessary to process the legal documents required to function effectively in our economy, let alone setting ourselves up for retirement and maximizing the tax code. We aren’t doctors, so we shouldn’t be telling our physicians what medications we wish to take, let alone reading through medicinal and health plans. We aren’t educators, so we shouldn’t be expected to teach our children all of the ins and outs of what they are going to face in the world—especially with our own antiquated perspectives.

The implication of DIY and caveat emptor is that the experts should not be held responsible for your ignorance. But the real question is why? I’m not talking about suing McDonald’s because they should tell a person that coffee is hot by printing it on the cup. I’m talking about more than informing. I’m talking about doing their basic jobs. Drug companies are not in the business of selling as many drugs to as many people as they can (despite the last decade’s evidence to the contrary), but the business of researching, developing, and producing life-saving medications. In fact, any attempt to convince people to take a drug they don’t need should be seen as fraud, not prudent business practice.

It’s about time we focus on the real issue: caveat emptor no longer works. A buyer should trust that they are getting what the seller claims. We even have a phrase: truth in advertizing. We should start by demanding it.