Mason v. Chrysler Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding generally \statements that compare one product to another and claim superiority\ not actionable misrepresentations
• holding national advertising campaign improper basis for fraud claim because advertisements mere puffing
• “special circumstances” may “give rise to a duty to speak”
• “This Court has held that statements of opinion amounting to “puffery” or predictions as to events to occur in the future are not statements concerning material facts upon which individuals have a right to act and, therefore, will not support a fraud claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).