Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc.
212 So.2d 906 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Misrepresentations of opinion may be actionable as misrepresentations of fact where the party stating the opinion has superior knowledge of the subject matter, or the parties are not dealing at arm's length, and the other party is not in an equal position to ascertain the truth.
Facts:
- Audrey E. Vokes, a 51-year-old widow, sought to become an 'accomplished dancer' to find a new interest in life.
- Beginning on February 10, 1961, Vokes attended a dance studio operated by J.P. Davenport under an Arthur Murray, Inc. franchise.
- Davenport and his staff continuously flattered Vokes, representing that she had grace, poise, was rapidly improving, and had excellent potential as a dancer.
- Relying on these representations, over a period of less than sixteen months, Vokes was induced to purchase fourteen separate dance courses totaling 2302 hours of lessons.
- The total cost for these lessons amounted to $31,090.45.
- The studio sold her packages to achieve supposed milestones like 'Bronze,' 'Silver,' and 'Gold' medals, often when she already had hundreds of unused lesson hours to her credit.
- In reality, Vokes had no dance aptitude, had difficulty 'hearing the musical beat,' and was not developing her dancing skills as represented.
- The instructors were aware of her lack of ability but deliberately withheld this information and made contrary representations to induce her to purchase additional lessons.
Procedural Posture:
- Audrey E. Vokes (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Arthur Murray, Inc. and J.P. Davenport (defendants) in a Florida trial court.
- The complaint sought to have the dance lesson contracts declared null and void and to recover the $31,090.45 paid, less the value of lessons already taken.
- The trial court dismissed Vokes's fourth amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action.
- Vokes (appellant) appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
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 party's false statements of opinion regarding a person's abilities and potential constitute actionable misrepresentation sufficient to void a contract when that party holds vastly superior knowledge and the other party does not have an equal opportunity to discover the truth?
Opinions:
Majority - Pierce, J.
Yes. While generally a misrepresentation must be one of fact rather than opinion to be actionable, this rule does not apply where one party has superior knowledge of the subject, where the parties are not dealing at arm's length, or where artifice is employed. Here, the defendants had superior knowledge regarding Vokes's dancing potential and progress. Given this unequal relationship, their statements, though framed as opinions, could be reasonably relied upon by Vokes as statements of fact. The constant barrage of flattery and false praise went beyond permissible 'sales puffing' and into the realm of misrepresentation, especially as the defendants had a duty to disclose the 'whole truth' about her lack of progress once they undertook to advise her. The allegations are sufficient to show that Vokes was induced by representations that were known to be false, making it unconscionable to allow the contracts to stand.
Analysis:
This case is a classic contracts law example that carves out significant exceptions to the general rule that statements of opinion or 'sales puffing' are not actionable misrepresentation. It establishes that a seller's superior knowledge can elevate their opinions to the level of factual representations, particularly when dealing with a vulnerable or uninformed buyer. The decision underscores that courts may intervene to prevent unconscionable outcomes by examining the entire context of a transaction, including the relative knowledge and bargaining power of the parties. This precedent is frequently used to protect consumers from predatory sales tactics that exploit a knowledge imbalance.
