The Caveat Emptor model is based on the statement, “Buyer Beware”. This model places all the responsibility and liability to the buyer on the basis of repercussions that may result from using a particular good, and refutes the ability for the buyer to be refunded upon purchase and/or consumption of a particular good. The moral and lack of ethic in this model basically results in many counterproductive results.
Counter Productive Results
The model leaves an open industry where common tools of marketing and business can be used without any limits and consideration. In both the Uptown and Dakota cases, there was the use of target marketing in an unethical manner. By targeting the vulnerable in the market, the company crosses the boundary of ethics and ignores their corporate social responsibility to the society.
The model leads to encouraging unlawful acts or unlawful business dealings by targeting underage and young ladies in the case of Dakota. The Dakota cigarette brand was meant to target young and teenage girls by creating ads that appealed to that segment of the market. In essence the model sets no moral or ethical boundaries within which the sellers, or companies within the market can operate in.
Positive Results
The model leaves the market open for the picking for the companies involved in the market. In the case of both Dakota and Uptown, the company was able to create brands that appealed to particular demographic segments in the market. The company was able to create brands that appealed to these segments with no boundaries, irrespective of whether it was sexist or racial.
References
Neufeld, J., Tyler, R. & Law Society of Manitoba, 2010. Caveat emptor and the pros and cons of greater sellers' disclosure. Winnipeg: Law Society of Manitoba.
