Such disputes are always subject to issues of proof, but if the buyer can prove that the owner new his statements were false, and if those statements concerned a matter that is material to the sale, the buyer can either rescind the contract or recover damages measured by the cost of putting the car into the condition warranted by the seller.
Personal Ethical Perspective and Values in Relation to Consumer Choice
In my personal opinion, it is highly unethical to misrepresent even subjective matters that may not be covered by contract law. For example, the law will not question the transaction because a seller told a prospective buyer that the car ran wonderfully, even if it runs poorly beginning the day after the sale, because the conclusion about what is "wonderful" is subjective and based on personal opinion and characterization. However, the law leaves substantial room between what kinds of statements are actionable at law and what kinds...
In my opinion, consumers should avoid doing business with companies that engage in puffery irrespective of whether it is legally permissible to do so.
Personal Experience with Ethical Programs in Relation to Puffery
I have not had much specific personal experience within organizations in this regard, but I have known people who would typically take full advantage of the room left by the law between what is considered puffery and what is considered a warranted statement of fact. Just as in the case of business organizations, I would have less respect for people who consider themselves bound only by the letter of the law rather than (also) by objective everyday notions of fairness and truth, even about issues that are not necessarily material to negotiations between parties as a matter of law.
