Warfield V. Wilson Case Summary
Warfield v. Hicks, 91 N.C.App. 1, 4, 8, 370 S.E.2d 689, 691, 693 (1988). Finally, the Court found dismissal of a fraud claim was appropriate because the following statements were not sufficiently specific:
Plaintiff complains that Defendant Popp falsely represented “the potential for sales from Popp’s Charlotte office,” “the quality of yarn produced by Clemson,” and “the availability of customers for Clemson Yarn.” Each of these categories, however, necessarily implies a statement of opinion, including, no doubt, a certain amount of puffery. Statements of opinion, in large part because they can be neither true nor false, are not actionable as fraudulent.
Wilson v. Popp Yarn Corp., 680 F.Supp. 208, 214-15 (W.D.N.C.) (1988) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff complains that Defendant Popp falsely represented “the potential for sales from Popp’s Charlotte office,” “the quality of yarn produced by Clemson,” and “the availability of customers for Clemson Yarn.” Each of these categories, however, necessarily implies a statement of opinion, including, no doubt, a certain amount of puffery. Statements of opinion, in large part because they can be neither true nor false, are not actionable as fraudulent.
Wilson v. Popp Yarn Corp., 680 F.Supp. 208, 214-15 (W.D.N.C.) (1988) (citations omitted).