FRANCOISE WYNNE
v.
DEBORAH FRIEDMANN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Statements regarding the reasonableness of purchase price, value of units, and desirability of products constitute non-actionable puffery under FDUTPA.
[1] Under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, statements by a merchant regarding the reasonableness of purchase price, the value of units relative to price ch…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“statements made by defendant, such as, the purchase price for the timeshare unit was reasonable, the units were worth more than what was being charged, and units were desirable, were 'nothing more than opinion or puffery'”
Court's citation to Perret v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., describing the nature of non-actionable statements in FDUTPA claims
Appellant Francoise Wynne brought a FDUTPA claim against Deborah Friedmann and others regarding allegedly deceptive statements about timeshare units o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Opinion Vs. Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Perret v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (dismissing FDUTPA claim with prejudice where statements made by defendant, such as, the purchase price for the timeshare unit was reasonable, the units were worth more than what was being charged, and units were desirable, were “nothing more than opinion or puffery”); Fineman v. Ferragamo USA Inc., 672 F. Supp. 3d 1302, 1311-13 (S.D. Fla. 2023) (holding that in a FDUTPA claim, “puffery” is not actionable); § 501.211(2), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“[D]amages, fees, or costs are not recoverable under this section against a retailer who has, in good faith, engaged in the dissemination of claims of a manufacturer or wholesaler without actual knowledge that it violated this part.”).