Cameron Miranda
In contract law, a mere puff is a statement that is mainly sales talk and should not be taken seriously. It is an idiom for a journalistic form of puffery, which is undue or exaggerated praise. In law, puffery is usually invoked as a defence argument to identify general praising speech by a seller that is not expected to be relied upon and does not give rise to legal liability. For example, in the 1892 English Court of Appeal case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, the defence argued that their promise to pay £100 if their influenza device failed to work was a mere puff and not meant to be taken seriously.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Definition | A mere puff is a non-promissory statement that may be used as part of negotiations to advertise a product and induce another to enter into a contract. |
| Legal Status | Not legally enforceable. |
| Nature of Statement | Exaggerated statements that no reasonable person would believe to be true. |
| Usage | Statements made by advertisers or sellers to praise their product or service. |
| Examples | "Our soap powder washes whiter than white"; "This is a great little car"; "Less filling" (beer commercial); "Drives great" (car dealer). |
| Origin | The term "mere puff" originated in the 1892 English Court of Appeal case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. |
Explore related products
![Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71KVwHbBZ1L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
Puffery in journalism
In contract law, a "mere puff" is a statement that is mainly sales talk and should not be taken seriously. It is not a legally enforceable promise and does not give rise to legal liability. The term "puffery" originated in the 1892 English Court of Appeal case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, where the defence argued that their statement was a "mere puff" and not meant to be taken seriously.
Journalists may succumb to pressure and pen a biased "puff piece" that praises a product, event, or individual while omitting any discussion of shortcomings. This can be influenced by the financial relationship between the product company or entertainment firm and the reviewer, or by privileged access to the product or event. For example, a small group of reviewers may be given an exclusive invitation to test-drive a new sports car or see a new film before its release, which may lead to a biased review out of a sense of obligation or the concern that failing to do so will result in the loss of future privileges.
A particular use of "puff pieces" can be seen in health journalism, where providers of alternative medicine may be unable to make direct claims due to laws against false advertising. However, they can place stories and testimonials with journalists who can write as they wish under press freedom laws. This allows them to build the reputation of a product that has no medical value through journalistic "puff pieces".
Philippine Law Journal: A Historical Overview
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Puffery in advertising
In contract law, a "mere puff" is a statement that is mainly sales talk and should not be taken seriously. It is not part of the contract, and one cannot sue for a breach of contract based on such statements. The term "puffery" originated in the 1892 English Court of Appeal case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, which centred on whether monetary reimbursement should be paid when an influenza preventive device failed to work. The manufacturers had advertised that they would pay £100 in such circumstances but failed to follow through with their promise. Their defence was that such a statement was "mere puff" and not meant to be taken seriously. While they lost the case, the court confirmed that certain statements made by advertisers that were not made in a serious manner could be exempt from the usual rules relating to promises in open contracts.
Puffery is undue or exaggerated praise that serves to "puff up" what is being described. In law, puffery is usually invoked as a defence argument, identifying general praising speech produced by a seller that is not expected to be relied upon and does not give rise to legal liability. Puffery is often described as "exaggerated advertising, blustering, and boasting", with statements like "World's best coffee" or "Number #1 Pizza". Puffery's subjective character means it cannot be proven true or false.
Puff pieces are a particular use of puffery in journalism, where an article or story provides exaggerated praise for a product, event, or individual while ignoring or downplaying opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary. For example, a review of a film, album, or product may be considered a "puff piece" due to the actual or perceived bias of the reviewer. In the health industry, providers of alternative medicine may use puff pieces to build the reputation of a product that has no medical value.
To summarise, puffery in advertising is a fine line to tread. While it can be a powerful tool to "puff up" a product or service, it is essential to be mindful of the potential legal implications and ensure that any statements made are not specific, measurable, or quantifiable.
The Law That Changed It All: Sex Discrimination Outlawed
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Puffery as a defence argument
Puffery, or "mere puff", is a legal term used to describe a category of statements that cannot be the basis of a lawsuit. In law, puffery is usually invoked as a defence argument, identifying general praising speech that is not expected to be relied upon and does not give rise to legal liability. It is typically produced by a seller to puff up what is being described and no "reasonable person" would take such statements seriously.
The term originated in the 1892 English Court of Appeal case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, which centred on whether a monetary reimbursement should be paid when an influenza preventive device failed to work. The manufacturers had paid for advertising stating that £100 would be paid in such circumstances but failed to follow through with this promise. Part of their defence was that such a statement was "mere puff" and not meant to be taken seriously. While the defence ultimately lost the case, the principle was confirmed that certain statements made by advertisers that were obviously not made in a serious manner could be exempt from the usual rules relating to promises in open contracts.
Puffery is often used in journalism, particularly in health journalism, where providers of alternative medicine may be unable to make claims due to laws against false advertising. They may instead place stories and testimonials with journalists who can write as they wish under press freedom laws. This is a lucrative way to build the reputation of a product that has no medical value.
Puff pieces, or reviews, of films, albums, or products may also be considered a form of puffery due to the actual or perceived bias of the reviewer. A review of a product, film, or event that is written by a sympathetic reviewer or an individual with a connection to what is being reviewed may be biased.
Immigration Laws: A Historical Overview
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Puffery as a non-promissory statement
Puffery, or "mere puff", is a legal term used to describe statements that are mainly sales talk and are not to be taken seriously. It is often used as a defence argument, identifying general praising speech by a seller that is not expected to be relied upon and does not give rise to legal liability. In other words, puffery is a non-promissory statement.
The term originated in the 1892 English Court of Appeal case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, which centred on whether a monetary reimbursement should be paid when an influenza preventive device failed to work. The manufacturers had advertised that £100 would be paid if the device failed to work, but when it did, they refused to pay. Their defence was that the statement was "mere puff" and not meant to be taken seriously. While the defence ultimately lost the case, the court confirmed that certain statements made by advertisers that were obviously not made in a serious manner could be exempt from the usual rules relating to promises in open contracts.
The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defines puffery as a "term frequently used to denote the exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined". The FTC stated in 1983 that puffery does not warrant enforcement action by the commission. In its FTC Policy Statement on Deception, the Commission stated: "The Commission generally will not pursue cases involving obviously exaggerated or puffing representations, i.e., those that the ordinary consumers do not take seriously."
Puffery often occurs in the context of advertising and promotional testimonials, where it may be used as a defence to a warranty or fraud claim. It is typically characterised by exaggerated, vague, or loosely optimistic statements about a company or product that are so immaterial and unworthy of reliance that they cannot serve as the basis for liability. The difference between a statement of fact and mere puffery rests in the specificity or generality of the claim.
In addition to advertising, puffery can also occur in journalism, where it is known as a "puff piece". A puff piece is an article or story that provides exaggerated praise for a product, film, album, or event, often ignoring or downplaying opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary. It may be influenced by the financial relationship between the product company or entertainment firm and the reviewer, or by the privileged access granted to the reviewer.
The First Water Law: A Historical Overview
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Puffery as a statement of opinion
In contract law, a "mere puff" refers to statements that are mainly sales talk and should not be taken seriously. Puffery, in this context, is undue or exaggerated praise that serves to "puff up" what is being described. It is typically invoked as a defence argument, identifying general praising speech by a seller that is not expected to be relied upon and does not give rise to legal liability.
The term "puffery" originated in the 1892 English Court of Appeal case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, which centred on whether monetary reimbursement should be paid when an influenza preventive device failed to work. The manufacturers had advertised that they would pay £100 in such circumstances but failed to follow through. Their defence was that such a statement was "mere puff" and not meant to be taken seriously. While they lost the case, it set a precedent that certain statements made by advertisers that were obviously not serious could be exempt from the usual rules relating to promises in open contracts.
Puffery, as a statement of opinion, is often used in marketing and advertising. Marketers may present subjective opinions as objective facts, such as using phrases like "users thought" or placing quotation marks around an objective claim. However, they must be careful not to mislead consumers with subjective claims (Rule 3.6) and must provide evidence for objective claims that are interpreted as such (Rule 3.7).
Puffery in marketing and advertising may include the use of "puff pieces", which are journalistic articles or reviews that provide exaggerated praise for a product, event, or service while ignoring or downplaying opposing viewpoints. These pieces often use "peacock words" like "amazing" or "revealed", "weasel words" like "probably one of the best", and tabloid-style filler that is irrelevant to assessing the qualities of what is being reviewed.
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has stated that puffery does not warrant enforcement action, as it refers to exaggerations by sellers that consumers are not expected to take seriously. Similarly, in the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) allows obvious exaggerations ("puffery") and claims that consumers are unlikely to take literally, provided they do not materially mislead. For example, the ASA ruled that consumers would understand "superfast in the kitchen", in an ad for Sky Wi-Fi, to mean that Sky offered superfast speeds at the router, with speeds in the kitchen depending on distance from the router.
In the context of corporate statements, puffery refers to vague, optimistic statements that are not capable of objective verification. For example, terms like "high quality" and "premium" have been deemed puffery by courts, as they are subjective and not subject to verification.
Creating City Law: A Step-by-Step Guide
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
A mere puff is a non-promissory statement that may be used during negotiations to advertise a product and induce another party to enter into a contract. It is an exaggerated statement that no reasonable person would believe to be true and is not a misrepresentation.
An advertisement claiming that a company's product is superior is a mere puff. For example, a beer commercial with the slogan "less filling".
In the 1892 English Court of Appeal case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, the defendant argued that their statement of paying £100 if their influenza device failed to work was a "mere puff" and not meant to be taken seriously.
