Stigman v. Nickerson Enterprises, Inc.
2000 Mass. App. Div. 223, 2000 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 83 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A salesperson's exaggerated statement about a product's quality, such as calling a used car with obvious defects 'mint condition,' is considered non-actionable 'puffing.' A buyer cannot claim reasonable reliance on such a statement when the defects are readily apparent to them, thus barring recovery for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Facts:
- In late June 1997, plaintiff Lloyd F. Stigman test drove a 1987 Chevrolet Corvette at the defendant's dealership, Americar Superstore.
- During his inspection and test drive, Stigman personally observed several defects, including rusty brakes and shocks, a ticking engine noise, and jammed hood springs requiring a mechanic's assistance to open.
- The trial judge also noted that Stigman must have seen that the front tires were oversized and extended beyond the fenders.
- When Stigman requested a price reduction due to the issues, the salesman responded that the price could not be lowered because the car was in 'mint condition.'
- On June 30, 1997, Stigman purchased the Corvette for $14,119.00.
- Within days of the purchase, Stigman experienced more serious problems, including smoke and noise from the front end and faulty steering and shaking at speeds over 45 miles per hour.
- Stigman demanded a full refund or repairs, but Americar's manager test drove the vehicle and denied the existence of any problems.
- Stigman ceased operating the vehicle in October 1997 after obtaining repair estimates from other dealerships confirming significant mechanical issues.
Procedural Posture:
- Lloyd F. Stigman sued Americar Superstore in a Massachusetts District Court (trial court).
- The complaint alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of implied warranties, and violations of the consumer protection statute G.L.c. 93A.
- Following a jury-waived trial, the trial judge entered a finding for the plaintiff, Stigman, on his misrepresentation and G.L.c. 93A claims.
- The trial court awarded Stigman treble damages totaling $45,537.00, plus attorney's fees and costs.
- Americar Superstore (defendant-appellant) appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division of the District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a car salesman's statement that a used vehicle with numerous visible defects is in 'mint condition' constitute an actionable misrepresentation on which a buyer can reasonably rely?
Opinions:
Majority - Curtin, J.
No. A salesman's statement that a used car with obvious defects is in 'mint condition' is considered non-actionable 'seller's talk,' and a buyer who is already aware of the defects cannot reasonably rely on such a statement. To succeed on a claim for fraud or misrepresentation, a plaintiff must prove reasonable reliance on a false statement of material fact. The court determined the salesman's characterization of the ten-year-old Corvette as 'mint' was a statement of opinion or 'puffing,' not an actionable statement of fact. Even if it were a statement of fact, Stigman's reliance was unreasonable as a matter of law because he had personally observed numerous defects—including faulty brakes, shocks, engine noise, and a jammed hood—before the statement was even made. Reliance is legally unreasonable when a representation is 'palpably false,' and a person cannot justifiably rely on a statement they know to be false or whose falsity is obvious. Because Stigman was aware of the car's issues, he could not have reasonably relied on the salesman's contradictory and superlative claim. Since the consumer protection claim under G.L.c. 93A was based entirely on the failed misrepresentation claim, it must also be reversed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional 'puffing' doctrine in contract and tort law, distinguishing subjective sales talk from objective, actionable statements of fact. It significantly clarifies the 'reasonable reliance' element of misrepresentation by holding that a buyer's actual knowledge of defects completely negates any claim of reliance on a seller's contrary assertions. The case serves as a precedent limiting seller liability where a buyer proceeds with a transaction despite being aware of 'palpably false' representations. It underscores that consumer protection statutes predicated on misrepresentation still require the underlying elements of the tort to be met, including justifiable reliance.
Unlock the full brief for Stigman v. Nickerson Enterprises, Inc.