By Ashvini Ranjan

The principle of buyer beware appears sensible at first glance. It encourages alertness, personal responsibility and common sense. Yet, when applied to everyday life, it raises a serious question. Is every citizen truly informed and capable of protecting himself from being misled or exploited? If not, where does responsibility actually lie?

In daily life, most people purchase goods and services in good faith. Only after using it does the defect become apparent. The loss is not merely monetary. It brings disappointment, unhappiness and a feeling of having been cheated.

The same concern applies even more strongly to services. One of the most basic services a State provides is safety and security. When policing is weak or inconsistent, anxiety becomes a constant presence.

When a citizen who has been wronged turns to the justice system, the expectation is not revenge alone. It is reassurance that fairness exists and that wrongdoing will be corrected. When justice is delayed, the original injury is made worse. The experience often leaves behind a sense of helplessness and loss of faith.

Repeated experiences of this kind slowly change behaviour. People become cynical and cautious by default. Trust begins to erode.  Gradually, suspicion becomes normal. Every transaction demands alertness. Every interaction carries doubt. What should be simple and routine begins to feel risky.

At this stage, a commonly offered solution emerges. Be careful. Do not take things at face value. Protect yourself.

A society where everyone focuses only on protecting themselves may continue to function, but it does not flourish. Problems that require collective attention remain unaddressed. Over time, indifference becomes accepted behaviour.

Legally, buyer beware was never meant to be more than an advisory. Modern consumer protection laws exist precisely because ordinary citizens cannot be expected to detect every defect or anticipate every failure. In a well-functioning system, the law corrects wrongs quickly and restores confidence.

However, when the legal system is slow or ineffective, this is a behavioural change in                          the society.

This shift quietly transfers responsibility from institutions to individuals. The burden of vigilance moves from sellers, service providers and regulators to the consumer. What should have been addressed through enforcement is managed through personal alertness.

The cost of this is not only financial. It affects trust. When every interaction feels risky, social ease disappears. Confidence in markets, institutions and public services weakens.

More troubling is the effect on civic behaviour. When people believe that complaints will lead nowhere, they stop speaking up.

At the same time, individual caution alone cannot produce a healthy society.

The more sustainable path lies in collective action. When citizens come together, individual fear gives way to shared strength. A single voice may be ignored. Many voices are harder to dismiss.

Collective action need not be confrontational. It can begin with shared information, documented complaints, resident associations, consumer forums and lawful civic platforms. When problems are raised together, accountability improves.

Safety lies in numbers. Not only physical safety, but moral and civic safety. Speaking up becomes easier and helping others becomes safer, when people stand together.

A good society is not one without problems. It is one where problems are addressed together, calmly and persistently.

Buyer beware was never meant to define how a society should live. It was meant to be a caution in limited situations. A truly liveable society is one where trust is supported by effective systems and strengthened by collective action. Only then can caution revert back into advice and trust return as a shared public good.