There is a legal term for lies in advertising: It's called 'puffery'. In
principle, I believe it means that if a claim is one that most people would
recognize as nonsense, then it is not a 'crime' or 'tort', for which
redress could be obtained in court. If it is a lie (or omission) that most
people would NOT recognize immediately, then it is subject to a suit.
As Charles Dickens said in Pickwick Papers, "The law sir, is a ass!"
At 04:24 PM 01/12/2001 +1000, you wrote:
>Julian wrote:
> > Actually in thinking about it, it is worse than that - they should
> > be open to consumer legal action. If they state an unqualified
> > figure for Dmax, then when measured by some "reasonable" process
> > it should meet that figure. With the likelihood that it will not,
> > this would mean that they are just plain lying, and therefore
> > should be open to action through consumer protection laws.
>
>By the same logic, Microsoft should have been out of business
>years ago. :) I vote for changing the old saw "Lies, damn lies
>and statistics" to read "Lies, damn lies, and advertising". :)
>
>Read some Dilbert sometime - advertising claims seldom match
>reality.
>
>Rob
>
>
>Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://wordweb.com
