Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc. 997 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. Sup. Ct. 2013) FACTS Kesling saw an ad for "A Sporty Car at a Great Value Price," along with pictures and a price of $2,981. She went to the Hubler Nissan dealership for a test drive. The salesperson had to jump-start the car, and it idled roughly. When Kesling asked about this, the salesperson said the car just needed a tune-up because "it had been sitting for a while." She bought the car and signed an acknowledgment that the car was sold "as is." She took the car to experts who found extensive problems with the car. An expert said the car was unsafe to drive, and this should have been obvious to anyone who inspected or serviced the car. Kesling sued the dealership, claiming that the ad "A Sporty Car at a Great Value Price" and the statement that it just needed a tune-up were misleading, that she relied on them, and that she should be able to rescind the contract. Hubler said the ad was mere puffery.

ISSUE Was the ad puffery? DECISION Yes. As the lower court found, "sporty car at a great value price" is typically used-car-sales puffery. It is a statement of unverifiable opinion. Puffery is meaningless sales patter or empty superlatives that no reasonable person would take seriously. It is different from an ad that stated that the car had cruise control, but the system did not actually work. That would be verifiable. We should not protect consumers from themselves. Additionally, to find otherwise would significantly impede legitimate advertising. Advertisements cannot be deceptive, but they need not refrain from any expression of opinion. The statement that the car just needed a tune-up, however, could be viewed as a representation of fact.

Explain what it is about, the court's ruling in the case, and why you find it to be an important ruling in the ambit of business law.