Academic Integrity: tutoring, explanations, and feedback — we don’t complete graded work or submit on a student’s behalf.

peter jimnez, a free lancer gaming consultant and blogger, was in need of a new

ID: 445725 • Letter: P

Question

peter jimnez, a free lancer gaming consultant and blogger, was in need of a new gaming system for his business. After some lenthy review, peter decided to purchase a sony playstatyion 4 system for his business needs. Weeks after the one year warranty expired, peter's sony playstation 4 failed to operate due to a flaw in the product manufacture. peter sued sony, making the argument that the gaming system should have lasted" at least couple of years," which peter reviewed as a reasonable consumer expectation for such an expensive gaming system. peter argued that sony's description of the gaming system as " most reliable", and" durable", were affirmative statements concering the quality and performance of the gaming system, which sony did not meet. How should the court rule? why?

Explanation / Answer

Solution :

The court may most likely dismiss the petetion filed by Peter jimnez because in order to be actionable as an affirmative misrepresentation, a statement must make a “specific and measurable claim, capable of being proved false or of being reasonably interpreted as a statement of objective fact.”

The appeals court may rule that Sony advertisements claiming the playstation 4 was durable and rugged were generalized, non-actionable puffery because they were “inherently vague and generalized terms” and “not factual representations that a given standard has been met.

The court may rule that Sony's advertisements touting the computer's durability were not legally binding. When viewed in the advertising context, these statements do not claim or imply that the playstation 4 useful life will extend for at least a couple of years. “For example, to the extent that 'durable' is a statement of fact, it may imply in context that the playstation 4 is resistant to problems occurring because of its being dropped, but not that it will last for a duration beyond its expressed warranty.”

Therefore Peter Jimnez lawsuit will most likely be dismissed .