Schott Motorcycle Supply, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that broad statements projecting increase in sales “in the context of franchisor-franchisee communications constitute nothing more than ‘puffing’ or ‘trade talk,’ upon which no reasonable person would rely.”
• holding party bound by \clear and express statement\ in its original and amended complaints
• “puffing” statements may be deemed actionable if, under the circumstances, they could be reasonably understood as “assurances as to specific facts, rather than mere opinion”
• interpreting a substantially identical statute and affirming summary judgment where “Plaintiff produced little or nothing to support its contention that defendant's conduct was arbitrary, in bad faith or unconscionable”
• defining terms using ordinary meaning because they were not specifically defined in statute
• binding a party to a “clear and express statement” from its amended complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).