Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc.
212 So. 2d 906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
A widow sold 2,302 hours of dance lessons by flattery
- In one lineEn una línea
- Flattering opinions about a customer's dancing ability, given by sellers with superior knowledge to induce more purchases, can be actionable misrepresentations.Las opiniones halagadoras sobre la habilidad de bailar de una clienta, dadas por vendedores con conocimiento superior para inducir más compras, pueden ser misrepresentations accionables.
- RuleRegla
- An opinion is treated as a representation of fact where the parties are not dealing at arm's length, the speaker has superior knowledge, and the opinion is given to induce reliance; a duty to speak the whole truth arises once the speaker undertakes to speak (R.2d §§ 168–169).
- Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso
- Assigned Oct. 20 in the misrepresentation unit: statements of opinion are usually not actionable, but when the speaker has superior knowledge and the parties are not on equal footing, flattering opinions about the listener's ability can be misrepresentations; it also previews undue influence and unconscionability.
- Procedural posturePostura procesal
- The buyer of dance lessons sued to rescind; the trial court dismissed the complaint; the appellate court reversed, holding she stated a claim.
Facts
Audrey Vokes, a fifty-one-year-old widow, was told at a dance studio that she had grace and potential, and over several years was sold, through a stream of compliments, awards and assurances that she was progressing, fourteen contracts totaling 2,302 hours of lessons for more than $31,000. In fact she had little aptitude and the instructors knew it.
Procedural posture
She sued to rescind; the trial court dismissed her amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action; the appellate court reversed.
Issue
Whether statements of opinion about her dancing ability, made by the sellers to induce further purchases, could support a claim of misrepresentation.
Holding
Yes. Where the parties were not on an equal footing and the sellers had superior knowledge, their opinions were representations she was entitled to rely on, and the complaint stated a cause of action.
Reasoning
The general rule exempts opinions from the law of misrepresentation, but the exception applies when the speaker knows more and the listener reasonably relies on that knowledge; having undertaken to evaluate her, the studio had a duty not to mislead, and a half-truth that omits the facts needed to make it not misleading is as actionable as a lie.
Rule (own words)
Experts who praise you to sell you something are making statements of fact about their own judgment; if they know better, it is misrepresentation.
What-ifs
- A friend at a party told her she danced well and she bought lessons: opinion, no reliance justified, no claim.
- The studio told her she was a poor dancer but could improve with lessons: true opinion, no claim.
- Same facts under unconscionability (UCC § 2-302 by analogy): a court might also refuse to enforce the later contracts as oppressive.
Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables
Why is this not mere puffing?
Which Restatement sections?
What is the remedy sought?
Say the answer out loud before revealing each part. Rate yourself honestly; the case comes back sooner when you miss.Di la respuesta en voz alta antes de revelar cada parte. Califícate con honestidad; el caso vuelve antes si fallas.
Panic kit: “Could you repeat the question, please?” · “Let me make sure I have the facts right: …” · “I'm not certain, but I'd argue … because …”Kit de pánico: “Could you repeat the question, please?” · “Let me make sure I have the facts right: …” · “I'm not certain, but I'd argue … because …”