Sales and Leases | 181
materials that the buyer could expect to see in the final product. Thus, the model created an express warranty as to the windows’ appearance, workmanship, and materials. The model did not create an express warranty, however, as to the windows’ size. [ See 2 Hawkland UCC Series § 2-313:3, Westlaw (database updated June 2021).] 4. Affirmation of the Goods’ Value or the Seller’s Opinion or Commendation of the Goods Two types of statements cannot create an express warranty, even if they relate to the goods: (1) a mere affirmation of the goods’ value and (2) a statement claiming to be the seller’s mere opinion or commendation of the goods. These statements are often called puffery, as they tend to involve exaggerated or embellished statements that most reasonable buyers disregard. In that vein, the distinction between puffery and true affirmations of fact, promises, or descriptions often turns on specificity, measurability, and reliance. That is, a specific statement referencing measurable items or data is, all other things equal, more likely to be deemed a true affirmation of fact, promise, or description. The same is true of a statement on which a reasonable buyer would rely in deciding to purchase the goods. On the other hand, if the information is not specific or measurable, it is more likely puffery. [U.C.C. § 2-313(2) (1951); 2 Hawkland UCC Series § 2-313:2, Westlaw (database updated June 2021).] Note : Statements that a good is the best, the finest, of premium quality, and so on are normally mere puffery, as are various statements assuring the buyer’s satisfaction with the goods. Statements like these cannot be objectively proven or disproven. Most reasonable buyers disregard these statements as the sort of hyperbole typical of zealous sellers hawking their wares. [ See Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc. , 677 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. 2004); 2 Hawkland UCC Series § 2-313:2, Westlaw (database updated June 2021).] Examples: (1) A consumer purchased a motorcycle from a dealer. During the underlying negotiations, the dealer told the consumer that the motorcycle was “a masterpiece,” “of premium quality,” and “filled to the brim with torque and ready to take you thundering down the road.” These statements were mere puffery and, thus, could not give rise to an express warranty. One simply cannot objectively prove or disprove whether a motorcycle is of premium quality, a masterpiece, or filled with torque and ready to take its rider thundering down the road. Rather, these statements are the kind of hyperbole typical of eager salespeople. [ See Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc. , 677 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. 2004).] (2) A manufacturer produced, marketed, and sold energy drinks in cans. The drinks’ labels featured all sorts of statements about the drinks, including “Athletes, musicians, anarchists, students, road warriors, metal heads, nihilists, geeks, hipsters, bikers, and milfs [slang for sexually attractive mothers] dig it. You will too;” “You’re gonna love it cause it’s a new kind of
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker