Section 8.6 Representations of Opinion, Puffing, and Value

• Library: Tort Law 2016

2. (§8.6) Representations of Opinion, Puffing, and Value

Not all misrepresentations are actionable. Statements of opinion, such as representations of value, dealer’s talk, trade talk, puffing of a manufacturer’s wares, and sales propaganda, are ordinarily not factual representations sufficient to form the basis of a fraud claim. See Clark v. Olson, 726 S.W.2d 718, 720 (Mo. banc 1987) ("Puffing of wares, sales propaganda, and other expressions of opinion are common, are permitted, and should be expected. Those in the marketplace should recognize and discount such representations when deciding whether to go through with a transaction."); see also:

· Lowther v. Hays, 225 S.W.2d 708 (Mo. 1950)

· Constance v. B.B.C. Dev. Co., 25 S.W.3d 571, 587–88 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000)

· Arnott v. Kruse, 730 S.W.2d 597 (Mo. App. S.D. 1987)

Statements as to the quality of workmanship to be performed or a manufacturer’s claims about the product are generally classified as opinion or "puffing" statements, which are not actionable as fraud. See:

· Arnold v. Erkmann, 934 S.W.2d 621, 627 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996) (text and citation omitted) (statements predicting future success and profitability of cattle industry are not actionable fraud):

The representations that the Brangus cattle industry was lucrative and that the cow IS2 was highly valuable and of great breeding potential are non-actionable, non-specific opinions and commendatory trade talk. . . .

. . . .

. . . A statement as to the value of property is ordinarily considered an opinion, not a statement of fact. Where the representations...