Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

puffing vs. fraud

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 241 U.S. 64 - United States v. New South Farm & Home Co. · 1916Most cited · 106 citing opinions

Mere puffing, indeed, might not be within its meaning; that is, the mere exaggeration of the qualities which the article has; but when a proposed seller goes beyond that, assigns to the article qualities which it does not possess, does not simply magnify in opinion the advantages which it has, but invents advantages and falsely asserts their existence, he transcends the limits of 'puffing' and engages in false representations and pretenses. An article alone is not necessarily the inducement and compensation for its purchase. It is in the use to which it may be put, the purpose it may serve; and there is deception and fraud when the article is not of the character or kind represented and hence does not serve the purpose.

How often courts cite the case defining “puffing vs. fraud”

1910192019401960198020002020203019

Court decisions citing the opinion that defined “puffing vs. fraud” — 106 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining case as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.