cannot discern anything that the Distributors possibly could have done to create an express warranty with Masepohl and other members of the class. Masepohl claims that “the Defendants,” generally, created an express warranty through the “broad claims” contained in their advertisement and promotions. While advertising and other descriptions of a product by a seller can, in some circumstances, create an express warranty, see Federal Reserve Bank v. Carey Canada, Inc., Civ. No. 3-86-185, 1988 WL 220489, at *4 (D.Minn. Aug.31, 1988), such is not the ease here. The advertisements that have been found to constitute express warranties contain very specific claims and promises as to how a certain product will perform. See, e.g., Baumgartner v. Glesener, 171 Minn. 289, 214 N.W. 27, 28 (1927) (<HOLDING>). A claim that cigarettes are not addictive,
holding that a four percent error rate constitutes substantial compliance with a statute holding inter alia defendant breached implied warranty of merchantability where an express warranty regarding safety of goods was printed on package and where goods failed to conform to the express warranty holding that a 50 percent error rate would constitute a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation holding that advertisement claiming that seed would germinate at rate of ninetyfive percent constituted an express warranty holding that where the proper rate of interest was eight percent but the court ordered six percent movant had waived right to higher rate by not raising the issue earlier in its petition for review