Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (50891)	6/13/2002 5:40:18 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Correct, although caveat emptor has been softened quite a lot both by statute and by common law since its original conception. But it still has "legs" in certain situations. "Seventy years ago, this court noted that "the tendency of the more recent cases has been to restrict rather than extend the doctrine of caveat emptor." Wooddy v. Benton Water Co., 54 Wash. 124, 127, 102 P. 1054 (1909). That continuing trend is reflected in several areas of the law of contract. For instance, this requirement of contractual fair dealing is found in section 1-203 of the Uniform Commercial Code" Liebergesell v. Evans, 93 Wn.2d 881, 613 P.2d 1170 (1980)