As is — where is. This is a term that is supposed to clearly state that a product is being sold or rented out in current visible form. The idea is that the buyer is willing to take possession of a certain product and is willing to take responsibility for any unforeseen problem, damage or imperfection.
Generally, the term is used in advertisements and contracts, simply to avoid future demands or unreasonable claims from buyers or tenants. Many vendors use it to avoid hassles or after sales problems. It is suppose to be an all-purpose escape clause.
While reading several classified ads this weekend, I noticed an increase in the number of advertisements that posted the terms “As is- where is”.
The noticeable use of the term “As is – Where is” is a serious cause for concern not because of what it states but what it may possibly reflect as a result of typhoon Ondoy.
Since thousands of cars and houses went underwater during the flooding caused by typhoon Ondoy, many people have commented that anybody buying a house secondhand vehicle has to be careful about buying a potential rust bucket or water-damaged house.
Everyone cites the rule of “Buyer beware” or the “Lemon law” but what protection do we really have from seemingly nice people but who are desperate enough to lie and deny that the car or product they are selling are in fact water damaged or went underwater.
This is an area where Congress and government should step in to protect consumers. To date there seems to be no law that stops insurance companies from recycling cars, motorcycles etc that are deemed “total damage”. They either sell the “damaged goods” or pass them on to an auto shop to rebuild and sell.
I have not heard of any law that requires vehicle owners to file a report with the police or the LTO if their vehicle has been damaged such as in a vehicular accident or drowned in the flood, or was stolen and used for criminal purposes.
So now we are beginning to see a growing number of vehicles being sold or re-sold under the terms “As is – where is”. The buyer assumes responsibility but the seller has no liability for potential or criminal dishonesty.
* * *
In the midst of the legal case of Pfizer versus United Laboratories concerning patent infringement and Unilab versus Pfizer for “extending” the life of their patent, I was quite surprised by a so-called “Press statement” reportedly made by Senator Mar Roxas. I found it incredulous that Senator Roxas would be at the Senate issuing press statements less than 24 hours after his wedding.
The statement claims that: “the good senator had been approached by an association of small drugstore operators, because they were caught in the crossfire between the United Lab the biggest Pharmaceutical Company in the Philippines, and Pfizer, the leading multi-national company in the country”.
The alleged group reportedly complained of being threatened with legal action if they continue to sell a product of Unilab that Pfizer claims is under their exclusive patent.
In response, the Senator was quoted as saying that the Pharmaceutical giants should keep the small players out of their fight because the dealers are merely following the spirit of the Cheaper Medicines Act. The statement ended by saying that the Senator would not hesitate or intended to conduct a Senate investigation on the matter.
Analyzing the statement, it became very obvious that someone else must have written this script and obviously someone not well versed in law and legislation. According to a Senate source the author was not Senator Roxas but a PR man hoping to be the next Press Secretary. By the tone of the press statement, he was obviously practicing being a Senator during the absence of Mar Roxas.
My suspicion was reinforced by the fact that the writer failed to realize that no-where in the Cheaper Medicines Act is there a provision that exempts anyone from legal action for selling a product that is deemed “pirated” or as a result of patent infringement. The law on Cheaper Medicines is different from the law on Intellectual property rights.
The source of the statement also failed to make the distinction that selling generic products or cheaper medicines is not the same as selling a product that is the subject of legal action where the two companies are arguing about the legality of a patent.
Until the courts resolve the matter it is highly irresponsible to issue statements that give a false sense of protection or immunity from suit because “someone in the Senate said so”. The fact is, our laws provide legal remedies to protect Intellectual property and one of them is to file criminal cases in court.
It remains that legal action can be taken against a vendor selling pirated goods. There can be no distinction between one group of vendors from the people that Edu Manzano had arrested for selling pirated DVDs, fake computer programs, pirated games, same as the people that the NBI arrest for selling fake Louis Vuitton, Prada, La Coste etc.
As for the threat of a Senate investigation, my unsolicited advise to members of the Senate is that they should practice more direct control of their affairs and their business or sworn duties. We all know that in many cases, Senators tend to delegate a lot of work and authority to their Chief of Staff, Legal adviser, Spokesperson, media officer etc.
There is too much independence on the part of subordinates and reckless dependence on the part of some Senators. Whether in legislative work or statements, the authority vested upon a Senator is entrusted upon a Senator not his staff.