Baughn v. Honda Motor Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “loose general praise of goods sold,” known as puffing, is not ac tionable for fraud
• holding that the television 17 commercials at issue were merely “loose general praise of goods,” also known as “sales talk or 18 puffing,” and that the misrepresentation claim based upon such advertisements was properly 19 dismissed
• noting that we do not \deem it necessary to apply the type of risk-utility analysis ... that specifically requires preliminary proof of `something wrong'.\
• concluding that allegedly inadequate 13 warnings were not proximate cause of harm where victim knew the risk and ignored the 14 warnings; the harm would have occurred even with more vivid warnings of risk of death 15 or serious injury
• barring implied 14 warranty action where plaintiff “sued the manufacturer rather than the dealer who sold him the 15 mini-bike”
• relaxing privity requirement under Washington law where manufacturer makes express representations to remote buyer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).