All-Tech Telecom, Inc. v. Amway Corp.
174 F.3d 862 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A commercial party cannot recover purely economic losses on tort claims of misrepresentation or on an equitable claim of promissory estoppel when the parties' relationship is governed by an express contract, and the alleged misstatements amount to non-actionable puffery, corrected statements, or vague predictions upon which a reasonable business person would not rely.
Facts:
- In 1987, Amway began offering a new product and service called the 'TeleCharge' phone, designed for use by customers in hotels and restaurants.
- Beginning in 1988, All-Tech was formed for the purpose of being an Amway distributor and purchased a large quantity of TeleCharge phones.
- All-Tech alleged that Amway made several representations to induce these purchases, including that the service would be the 'best' in the nation, that it had been approved in all 50 states, and that each phone could generate annual revenue of $750.
- The TeleCharge product was a commercial failure due to a variety of factors, including equipment problems, regulatory issues, and the product's eventual obsolescence.
- Amway ultimately withdrew the TeleCharge product from the market in 1992, after All-Tech had invested in the phones.
- All-Tech claimed it was lured into and kept in the losing business venture by Amway's statements.
Procedural Posture:
- All-Tech Telecom, Inc. sued Amway Corp. in federal district court (the court of first instance) based on diversity of citizenship.
- All-Tech brought claims for breach of warranty, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel.
- The district court allowed the breach of warranty claims to proceed to a jury trial.
- The jury found Amway had breached a warranty but awarded All-Tech zero dollars in damages.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Amway on the misrepresentation and promissory estoppel claims, dismissing them without a trial.
- All-Tech, as appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the misrepresentation and promissory estoppel claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Amway is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a seller's promotional statements, predictions, and puffery regarding a new commercial product give rise to actionable tort claims for misrepresentation or an equitable claim for promissory estoppel when the buyer is a commercial entity and the product ultimately fails, causing purely economic loss?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Chief Judge
No. A seller's promotional statements, predictions, and puffery regarding a new commercial product do not give rise to actionable tort claims for misrepresentation or an equitable claim for promissory estoppel when the buyer is a commercial entity. The court first explained that the economic loss doctrine generally confines commercial parties to their contractual remedies for economic losses, preventing them from escalating contract disputes into tort claims. While declining to decide whether this doctrine bars claims of intentional misrepresentation in Wisconsin, the court affirmed on the alternative grounds that All-Tech failed to present evidence of any actionable misrepresentation. Specifically, some of Amway's statements were corrected before All-Tech purchased the phones, negating any reliance. Other statements constituted mere 'puffing' (e.g., 'the best') or vague sales talk upon which a reasonable commercial entity would not rely. Furthermore, promissory estoppel is inapplicable because it is not intended to be used when an express contract already governs the parties' relationship; to allow it would permit an 'end run' around established contract law principles like the parol evidence rule and warranty disclaimers. Promissory estoppel is not a 'second bite at the apple' for a party that fails to prove a breach of contract claim.
Analysis:
This opinion reinforces the critical boundary between contract and tort law in commercial disputes, primarily through the application of the economic loss doctrine. It illustrates the judiciary's reluctance to allow sophisticated commercial parties to use tort theories like misrepresentation to circumvent the terms and limitations of their contracts. By affirming on alternative grounds—the lack of any actionable misrepresentation—the court demonstrates a pragmatic approach that avoids deciding unsettled state law issues while still reaching a conclusion consistent with the principles of commercial reasonableness. The case serves as a strong reminder that businesses are expected to protect themselves through explicit, written contractual warranties rather than relying on generalized sales talk or oral promises.
