Car advertising---Quality claims----Puffery?
2009-07-02 13:52:23 GMT
Judges ruling on an E-Bay purchase described as "Gorgeous" but wasn't.
Instead, the panel held, Nigro could have exercised "reasonable diligence" prior to the purchase to uncover the deficiencies he discovered later and cannot now claim that he was induced into entering the transaction by any fraudulent misrepresentations.
"Plaintiff could have contacted defendants to inquire about the vehicle or its history (as defendants' advertisement specifically invited prospective purchasers to do), procured a vehicle history report (as recommended on eBay's Web site) or hired a mechanic in Nevada to inspect and/or examine the car before purchasing it," Justice Karen K. Peters wrote for the court in Nigro v. Lee, 506135. "Instead, plaintiff made no attempt to ascertain the true condition or history of the vehicle prior to this purchase."
As to the breach of warranty claim, the court noted that a "statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty" under state Uniform Commercial Code 2-2313.
"While the advertisement did describe the car as 'gorgeous,' this generalized expression was merely the seller's opinion of the car and constitutes 'no more than puffery,' which should not have been relied upon as an inducement to purchase the vehicle, particular in light of the fact that this was a used car transaction," Justice Peters wrote, citing Scaringe v. Holstein, 103 AD2d 880 (1984).
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured