14 ms·

"In the Disneyland example, what is being "sold" is the Disneyland trip" In my example the Disneyland trip was a prize. We agree that the magical transportatio

"In the Disneyland example, what is being "sold" is the Disneyland trip" In my example the Disneyland trip was a prize. We agree that the magical transportation is puffery, as we agree that the child travelling to school in a jet is puffery. But just as it doesn't automatically follow that just because the magical transportation is puffery, so too is the Disneyland prize. It doesn't automatically follow that the jet plane itself is puffery, just because the teenager travelling to school in one is puffery. $700k is a lot of money, that in itself is going to limit how many people are going to try to buy anything. And lets say they did believe they were going to get 'a' Harrier maybe they thought it was going to be a second hand Mk1 Harrier that isn't worth nearly so much, and even then how do you go about valuing and selling something like that. A nation state probably wouldn't be interested, so a private collector, but how many of those are there? Would they want to buy from a Pepsi swilling teenager? How quickly? How much storage and transport/fuel fees are you going to incur? All of that is itself enough risk to justify only $700k on a potential $23m. You're right that its a contract issue, even if they had advertised an actual Harrier for $700k they still wouldn't have had to sell it ( under UK contract law anyway, I understand it to be the same in the US)

vidarh 7y ago
> In my example the Disneyland trip was a prize. Hence my quotes. The advertising would be selling the reader/viewer on the value of a trip to Disneyland, not on the obviously non-existent magical transport. > It doesn't automatically follow that the jet plane itself is puffery, just because the teenager travelling to school in one is puffery. It doesn't automatically follow, but the court spent about a page outlining why the combination is ridiculous to a reasonable person. That only one person attempted it to me strongly suggests that their assessment was right in that. Much more reasonable statements have been accepted as puffery. Your argument that people might have had difficulties figuring out how to sell it etc. does not ring true to me - the logical consequence of spotting an offer to buy something potentially worth $23m for $700k would be to seek out details of the offer and determine if there was a real prospect of getting it and so determine if there was a possibility to profit from it. Plaintiff in this case did not do so, presumably because he understood full well doing so would ruin his chances to claim he genuinely relied on the ad being an offer. But neither did anyone else. Referencing "Pepsi swilling teenagers" is also irrelevant - the ad aired during Superbowl; it would have been seen by plenty of people who could raise $700k. Only one was dumb enough to try, and doubled down when facing judgements for substantial lawyers fees. > You're right that its a contract issue, even if they had advertised an actual Harrier for $700k they still wouldn't have had to sell it ( under UK contract law anyway, I understand it to be the same in the US) It's a "contract issue" in that jurisdiction only in as much as because it was not a binding offer there was no enforceable contract, and one of the reasons why there was no binding offer was that the court considered it puffery, so the two are connected. If they had made a clear, unambiguous offer that required no further negotiation (e.g. stated clearly that it would be a demilitarised version, subject to limited availability, and any other criteria that could be reasonably expected to be necessary), and it hadn't been puffery then the ad could have constituted a valid offer. But it didn't meet any of the tests the court examined.

vidarh 7y ago

> In my example the Disneyland trip was a prize. Hence my quotes. The advertising would be selling the reader/viewer on the value of a trip to Disneyland, not on the obviously non-existent magical transport. > It doesn't automatically follow that the jet plane itself is puffery, just because the teenager travelling to school in one is puffery. It doesn't automatically follow, but the court spent about a page outlining why the combination is ridiculous to a reasonable person. That only one person attempted it to me strongly suggests that their assessment was right in that. Much more reasonable statements have been accepted as puffery. Your argument that people might have had difficulties figuring out how to sell it etc. does not ring true to me - the logical consequence of spotting an offer to buy something potentially worth $23m for $700k would be to seek out details of the offer and determine if there was a real prospect of getting it and so determine if there was a possibility to profit from it. Plaintiff in this case did not do so, presumably because he understood full well doing so would ruin his chances to claim he genuinely relied on the ad being an offer. But neither did anyone else. Referencing "Pepsi swilling teenagers" is also irrelevant - the ad aired during Superbowl; it would have been seen by plenty of people who could raise $700k. Only one was dumb enough to try, and doubled down when facing judgements for substantial lawyers fees. > You're right that its a contract issue, even if they had advertised an actual Harrier for $700k they still wouldn't have had to sell it ( under UK contract law anyway, I understand it to be the same in the US) It's a "contract issue" in that jurisdiction only in as much as because it was not a binding offer there was no enforceable contract, and one of the reasons why there was no binding offer was that the court considered it puffery, so the two are connected. If they had made a clear, unambiguous offer that required no further negotiation (e.g. stated clearly that it would be a demilitarised version, subject to limited availability, and any other criteria that could be reasonably expected to be necessary), and it hadn't been puffery then the ad could have constituted a valid offer. But it didn't meet any of the tests the court examined.