Stambovsky v. Ackley [...] is a hobgoblin which should be exorcised from the body of legal precedent"). The dissenting opinion argued that the doctrine of "caveat emptor" should be strictly applied and would affirm the trial court's dismissal of all of the actions. Displeased by the majority's basis for its holding, the dissent said, "Finally, if the doctrine of caveat emptor is to be discarded, it should be for a reason more substantive than a poltergeist. The existence of a poltergeist is no more binding upon the defendants than it is upon this court." The case generated considerable publicity and area real estate
Caveat emptor if a buyer who inspects new goods with reasonable promptness discovers them to be "nonconforming" (failing to meet the description provided or any other standards reasonably expectable by a buyer in his/her situation) and does not use the goods or take other actions constituting acceptance of them, the buyer may promptly return or refuse to accept ("reject") them and demand that the defect be remedied ("cured"). When goods fitting the same description and expectations are available for sale ("e.g.", when the vendor has other instances of the same mass-produced merchandise in stock inventory), either the vendor or the buyer may