When is it Puffing or Fraud?

[rkdeckman]

I would like your assistance for a research paper for Business and Ethics. I am in South Carolina.

I responded to an advertisement for a job with "average income of 45-65K per year." The corporation in the ad has national recognition, in other words, I trusted them giving up a job at 32K. The average income ended up being significantly less than advertised. I earned at or above the average income for sales representatives, and made less than $20,000 per year.

When I discussed this with a lawyer he told me that this was called "puffing" and the company could be not held liable.In other words "it's my tough luck and I should have been more skeptical." I considered this advertisement to misleading and unethical. I have done some research and understand it is the same as the offers to stuff envelopes, or like the signs on the telephone post advertising $25 - $50 per hour on your computer at home. (Where can I find articles about those?)

Where is the line drawn between "Puffing" and Fraud? Where
do I find similar cases or articles that might talk about the ethics of this common practice.

Please suggest any sources for my research.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

There is no fraud liability for mere statements of opinion, or "puffing." [Hauter v Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal 3d 104, 120 Cal Rptr 681, 534 P2d 377]

There is no fraud liability for mere statements of opinion, or "puffing." Promises of safety, however, will ordinarily be held to be representations of fact. [Hauter v Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal 3d 104, 120 Cal Rptr 681, 534 P2d 377] An expression of opinion will also be treated as a misrepresentation of fact where the one expressing the opinion does not in fact entertain it; where the opinion is accompanied by and amplifies other false representations of fact; where the opinion is expressed in a manner implying a factual basis which does not exist; where the opinion is expressed as a fact; and where the expression of opinion is made by a party possessing superior knowledge. [Pacesetter Homes, Inc. v Brodkin (1970, 2nd Dist) 5 Cal App 3d 206, 85 Cal Rptr 39; see also Toole v Richardson-Merrell, Inc. (1967, 1st Dist) 251 Cal App 2d 689, 60 Cal Rptr 398, 29 ALR3d 988 (representations made to party so situated that he or she may reasonably rely on supposed superior knowledge or special information of party making them may be construed as representations of fact and not of opinion)]

IAAL

 

[rkdeckman]

Thanks IAAL

Can I find the text of those cases online? Where?
If not online how and where?

I have read that Puffing is opinion or "Objective,"
versus fact which is "subjective."

The advertisement I am refering to read like this:

"Sales Consultants
Are you interested in:
...
.earning a great income (base + override)
. 45k - 65k average income, top producers to earn more
..."

I see that as saying that the existing salesmen are earning this level of income now. A fact, right?

It was mis-represented to me that several of the existing sales reps were at that level. No, they were not earning that much.
I am trying to understand why there is no liability of fraudelent inducement.