Fraudulent inducement or misrepresentation; Roberts v. Saffell; Statements about future events; Cummins v. Robinson Twp.; Pleading with particularity; Stephens v. Worden Ins. Agency, LLC; Sales puffing; Van Tassel v. McDonald Corp.; Hayes Constr. Co. v. Silverthorn; Negligent misrepresentation; Alfieri v. Bertorelli; Abandoning an appeal with inadequate briefing; DeGeorge v. Warheit; Prince v. MacDonald

While the court found that plaintiffs abandoned their appeal due to inadequate briefing, it considered their claims and held that (1) the complaint did not state a claim for either fraudulent inducement or misrepresentation, (2) defendant-Kline’s “representation was sales puffing[,]” and (3) their negligent misrepresentation claim also failed. Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for Kline and defendant-Detergent Solutions. Noting that fraud claims must be pled with particularity, the court determined that ¶¶ 19 and 24 of the complaint did “not contain any factual allegations” but rather simply recited “legal conclusions to support plaintiffs’ claims. Such pleadings need not be taken as true for purposes of MCR 2.116(C)(8)[.]” Assuming the allegation in ¶ 20 was “sufficiently particular to survive the pleading requirements for fraud, it still does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it alleges that Kline made inaccurate statements about future events (the success of a laundromat at the selected location), which is not a misrepresentation of existing or past facts necessary to support a claim of fraud.” The court concluded that “Kline’s representation that the laundromat would earn $24,000 per month was Kline’s opinion, which he made for purposes of promoting the product he was selling. That plaintiffs’ realization fell short of Kline’s promotion is a ‘realit[y] of commercial intercourse.’” The court noted that a fraud claim “cannot be predicated on a salesman’s ‘puffing[.]’” As to the negligent misrepresentation claim, ¶ 22 failed to “state what duty defendants owed plaintiffs,” and plaintiffs did not otherwise specify the duty owed in the complaint. Thus, they did not state a claim for negligent misrepresentation.