3 ms·

> Pepsi never cashed the check. So maybe if the guy had actually first obtained all the point, then demanded the jet, the suit might have come out differently?

> Pepsi never cashed the check. So maybe if the guy had actually first obtained all the point, then demanded the jet, the suit might have come out differently? > cited for is puffery I'm no expert on puffery, but if the definition on wikipedia is correct, it doesn't seem like its puffery because it doesn't express "subjective views" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery . Offering a jet for points is a pretty objective statement. > the purported subject matter of the agreement would have required a written agreement signed by the parties Perhaps that's what would be needed for this to be fraud, but a contract certainly wouldn't be necessary to accuse them of bait-and-switch.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Perhaps that's what would be needed for this to be fraud, No, a valid contract was a requirement of the breach of contract claim, not the fraud claim. > but a contract certainly wouldn't be necessary to accuse them of bait-and-switch. Bait-and-switch isn't a legal cause of action. The usual cause of action for things described as bait and switch is either breach of contract (if there was an agreement) or fraud (if the bait-and-switcher got something of value from the other party out of it). Both were raised in this case, and both failed.
- billytetrud 5y ago
  > Bait-and-switch isn't a legal cause of action That seems pretty dumb to me. Then you're telling me it not actually illegal? There's no way to enforce advertisers not from doing a bait and switch? Count me skeptical.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Then you're telling me it not actually illegal? There is a regulatory category called “Bait advertising” created under FTC’s legal authority related to deceptive advertising, and various legal causes of action (mainly fraud and breach of contract, but there are others) that each cover some part of what might be described as “bait and switch” in casual conversation. “Bait and switch” is something that different people will have different boundaries around and has no hard and fast definition.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Perhaps that's what would be needed for this to be fraud, No, a valid contract was a requirement of the breach of contract claim, not the fraud claim. > but a contract certainly wouldn't be necessary to accuse them of bait-and-switch. Bait-and-switch isn't a legal cause of action. The usual cause of action for things described as bait and switch is either breach of contract (if there was an agreement) or fraud (if the bait-and-switcher got something of value from the other party out of it). Both were raised in this case, and both failed.

billytetrud 5y ago
> Bait-and-switch isn't a legal cause of action That seems pretty dumb to me. Then you're telling me it not actually illegal? There's no way to enforce advertisers not from doing a bait and switch? Count me skeptical.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Then you're telling me it not actually illegal? There is a regulatory category called “Bait advertising” created under FTC’s legal authority related to deceptive advertising, and various legal causes of action (mainly fraud and breach of contract, but there are others) that each cover some part of what might be described as “bait and switch” in casual conversation. “Bait and switch” is something that different people will have different boundaries around and has no hard and fast definition.