WI · jury_instructions
Wis JI-Civil 3225
Express Warranty: Statement of Opinion
A statement which is not based on actual knowledge but is a mere expression of a
conclusion or judgment is an opinion. If the statement deals with a matter of common
knowledge, it is generally an opinion since the parties to the agreement are both deemed to
know facts of common knowledge. Where the thing represented is susceptible of actual
knowledge, it is one of fact. A seller may resort to "puffing" his or her goods, provided his or
her salesmanship remains within the range of "dealer's talk" and constitutes a mere
expression of opinion.
"Puffing" refers generally to an expression of opinion not made as a representation of
fact.
If the statement, although it is "puffing" or an opinion, is stated as a material fact and
is made for the purpose of inducing a sale, and does in fact induce the sale, then such
statement becomes an express warranty. In determining whether the statement made by the
seller is mere "puffing" or an expression of opinion or a statement of fact, you will consider
the surrounding circumstances under which it was made, the way the statement was made,
and the usual effect and meaning of the words used in such statement.
History
Wis JI-Civil 3225 (1994). ©1994, Regents, Univ. of Wis. Prepared by the Wisconsin Civil Jury Instructions Committee of the Wisconsin Judicial Conference with the University of Wisconsin Law School; posted by the Wisconsin State Law Library with the University's permission.
Provenance
- Source
- wilawlibrary.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
cc6bad18fddeb51ae0dc9f2d3a55737637cc8cf103833f33e7ed8ca70148965f
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.