Short answer. Generally no. Article 1340 provides that the usual exaggerations in trade are not in themselves fraudulent where the buyer had an opportunity to know the facts. Sales talk about quality, durability or value is expected puffery. It becomes actionable only when it crosses into a false statement of fact.

What the law says

The usual exaggerations in trade, when the other party had an opportunity to know the facts, are not in themselves fraudulent.

Civil Code, Article 1340 — Dealer's Talk. Read the full provision →

The law expects sellers to praise what they sell

Article 1340 of the Civil Code is a single line: The usual exaggerations in trade, when the other party had an opportunity to know the facts, are not in themselves fraudulent. It recognises something obvious about commerce — nobody offers goods by describing their shortcomings — and it protects the buyer's own responsibility to look. "The best in the market", "built to last a lifetime", "an excellent investment": these are opinions and sales enthusiasm rather than assertions a buyer is entitled to treat as firm representations of fact. Disappointment with a purchase is therefore not, by itself, a case.

The condition attached to the rule matters as much as the rule

The protection is not unconditional. It applies when the other party had an opportunity to know the facts. That opportunity has to be genuine: the buyer must have been able to inspect, ask, compare or verify. Where the seller controls the information and the buyer cannot reach it — a hidden defect, a history the seller alone knows, a specification nobody outside the company can check — the exaggeration is no longer shielded, because the buyer never had the chance the article assumes he had. So the first question in these disputes is not what was said but what the buyer could have found out.

Where puffery ends and fraud begins

The line is between opinion and fact. "This is the finest unit we carry" is puffery; "this unit has never been used" or "it carries a factory warranty until next year" is a statement of fact that is either true or false. Under Article 1338 fraud exists where insidious words or machinations induce a party into a contract he would not otherwise have made, and a concrete false assertion about condition, history, capacity or documentation fits that far more comfortably than enthusiasm about quality does. Article 1339 adds that concealing facts one has a duty to disclose can itself be fraudulent.

Even real fraud has to be serious

Article 1344 requires that fraud be serious before it will annul a contract, and that it not have been employed by both contracting parties. Incidental fraud — a misrepresentation that did not cause the consent but caused some loss — does not undo the sale; it obliges the party who employed it to pay damages. So the practical question is not only whether the seller misled you, but whether you would have bought at all had you known the truth. If you would have bought anyway on different terms, you are in the damages territory rather than the annulment territory.

What is worth keeping

If you think a sale crossed the line, preserve the specific claims rather than the general impression: the advertisement, the written specifications, the message where the representation was made, the receipt and any warranty document. Statements a company put in writing are worth far more than what a salesperson said across a counter. Depending on the transaction, remedies under the rules on warranties may fit the facts better than an action on fraud, and that choice usually turns on the exact wording of what you were told and what the paperwork records.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.