Car advertising---Quality claims----Puffery?

Re: Car advertising---Quality claims----Puffery?

Re: Car advertising---Quality claims----Puffery?

I'm sure we've all wasted time & gas chasing a dream -- only to find it was a nightmare...

Ray

--- In vSAAB@..., Eric P <ericprzy <at> ...> wrote:
>
> caveat emptor
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Zumaque <zumaque <at> ...>
> To: vSAAB@...
> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:52:23 AM
> Subject: [vSAAB] Car advertising---Quality claims----Puffery?
> 
> 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[2]. 
> "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). 
> . 

------------------------------------

Re: Car advertising---Quality claims----Puffery?

Not only that, but now you're going to have to do a lot more  
"caveating" than you used to.

On the face of it, this decision appears to rule that an eBay seller  
can knowingly lie about his goods, as long as he restricts his lies to  
"puffery" and "opinion," and a buyer won't have any recourse if he  
buys based on the ad rather than conducting an independent  
investigation.

This would seem to render ALL eBay advertising so completely worthless  
that I wonder if eBay will sit still for it. No matter what the judge  
ruled, I'd think they'd have the opportunity to enforce tighter rules  
based on their terms of service -- although of course their  
enforcement actions wouldn't have as much teeth as a court's.

Meanwhile, maybe we should make hay while the sun shines. I hear  
Koenigsegg might be buying Saab, so if I advertise my ratty Sonett as  
a "Koenigsegg"  --  well, hey, MY opinion is that it's a Koenigsegg  
now, and anyway, that's no more than puffery, isn't it?

On Jul 2, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Eric P wrote:

>
>
> caveat emptor
>
>
> From: Zumaque <zumaque@...>
> To: vSAAB@...
> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:52:23 AM
> Subject: [vSAAB] Car advertising---Quality claims----Puffery?
>
>
> 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 inNigro 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[2].
>
> "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).
>
> .
>
>
>
>
> 

------------------------------------

Re: Re: Car advertising---Quality claims----Puffery?

.. yeah and then they won't even call you back..

Lester



On Jul 2, 2009, at 9:09 AM, Ray Kopczynski wrote:

> I'm sure we've all wasted time & gas chasing a dream -- only to find  
> it was a nightmare...
>
> Ray
>
> --- In vSAAB@..., Eric P <ericprzy <at> ...> wrote:
>>
>> caveat emptor
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Zumaque <zumaque <at> ...>
>> To: vSAAB@...
>> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:52:23 AM
>> Subject: [vSAAB] Car advertising---Quality claims----Puffery?
>>
>> 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[2].
>> "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).
>> .
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

------------------------------------

Re: Car advertising---Quality claims----Puffery?

Re: Re: Car advertising---Quality claims----Puffery?

Re: Car advertising---Quality claims----Puffery?

On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Eric P wrote:

> And, no doubt the Mercedes sold in this case could have been  
> "gorgeous" to the owner.   Would you trust a car's maintenance  
> history and condition simply based on a comment from the seller that  
> it's 'gorgeous'?  Probably not...and from what few facts we've seen,  
> I'm not sure the Court made a mistake here.

I'm not saying the court made a mistake. I'm saying that the worth of  
eBay as an advertising medium is going to decline sharply now that a  
court has held that lying on eBay is okay as long as you don't lie  
about quantitative facts, and that even then the would-be buyer has a  
duty to exercise "reasonable diligence" rather than being entitled to  
assume your ad means what it says. And it wouldn't surprise me if eBay  
were to take action to prevent that decline in worth.

------------------------------------

Bob Sinclair Memorial Ride T-shirts revisited

Saab people, et.c.:

Scout was overwhelmed by your response to the shirt operation so 
she's asked that I coordinate the effort on the 2nd run of Sons of 
Danger - Bob Sinclair Memorial Ride t-shirts.

Here's what I've got back from Scout from your responses. Feel free 
to reply with corrections or to let me know you want one or more if 
you're not on the list. I've cc:ed some of the Sinclairs and Bill 
Baker on this as well so we can coordinate this all under one roof.

Paul Ellis - 2 L
Paul Galanti - 2 XL
Jeff Heininger - 2 XL, 1 L
Duane Dostie - 2 XL
Barry Mabel - 1 XXL
Eric Cohen - 1 S, 1 M, 1 XL
Lester Ewing - 2 XL, 2 M
Chip Lamb - 3 XL, 2 L,
Lori Ann David - ?
John Wirt - ?
Scout & Laura et.al - TBD

Costs are not yet known. Shipping will be USPS Priority or UPS, 
whatever works out easier on my end. VISA/MC/Paypal et.c. happily 
accepted at that time, I'll run this stuff through the business.
_________________________________
Cheers-

William "Chip" Lamb
West of Sweden SAAB
Richmond, VA.
http://www.wmsbrg.com/sweden/
__________________________________

------------------------------------

Re: Car advertising---Quality claims----Puffery?

Based on the limited info, I'm surprised the court didn't throw out the lawsut as frivilous and I do hope they
tagged the plaintiff with all court costs.  Get real!  The person never did ANY due diligence that I can
infer.  Desrves to be a sheep led to slaughter!  You actually *believe* all the descriptions on eBay
withough asking questions of and for additional pictures??  Amazing...

Ray Kopczynski
Albany, OR

> 
> I'm not saying the court made a mistake. I'm saying that the worth of  
> eBay as an advertising medium is going to decline sharply now that a  
> court has held that lying on eBay is okay as long as you don't lie  
> about quantitative facts, and that even then the would-be buyer has a  
> duty to exercise "reasonable diligence" rather than being entitled to  
> assume your ad means what it says. And it wouldn't surprise me if eBay  
> were to take action to prevent that decline in worth.
>

------------------------------------