of those events may constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation.” (citing Lawson v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 259 S.C. 477, 485, 193 S.E.2d 124 (1972))); Loubier v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1279082, at *5 (D.Conn. Mar. 30, 2010) (collecting cases wherein fraud claims based on slogans and advertisements were not actionable); Wilson v. Popp Yarn Corp., 680 F.Supp. 208, 215 (WD.N.C.1988) (“Statements of opinion ... are not actionable as fraudulent.”); Mortarino v. Consultant Eng’g Serv., Inc., 251 Va. 289, 293, 467 S.E.2d 778 (1996) (“It is well settled that a misrepresentation, the falsity of which will afford ground for an action for damages, must be of an existing fact, and not the mere expression of an opinion.”); Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 107 Wash.2d 127, 727 P.2d 655, 668 (1986) (<HOLDING>); see also Howard v. Haddad, 962 F.2d 328, 331
holding that loose general praise of goods sold known as puffing is not ac tionable for fraud recognizing fraud to be a known misrepresentation or a nondisclosure holding that a creditors pmsi in goods sold to debtors did not survive consolidation of the original installment contract with a later contract for the purchase of additional goods holding that the hobbs act jurisdictional nexus was met by the robbery of a delicatessen that sold goods produced out of state without mentioning whether the goods were purchased from outofstate or instate suppliers holding that puffing does not give rise to fraud liability under mississippi law