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 recover only the damages that s/he would have suffered had s/he taken all feasible steps to minimize ("mitigate") his/her damages suffered. As a default rule, the perfect-tender rule may be "contracted around" in ways that specify or limit a buyer's remedies (and that accordingly reduce the market price that rational buyers are willing to pay for the goods). In many cases, the vendor will not provide a refund but will provide store credit. In the cases of software, movies, and other copyrighted material, many vendors will offer only a direct exchange for another copy of the same title, with the