P must show that the fact that he relied on was material to the underlying transaction. In fact, Car Dealer believes that the car is a terrible value. Where an opinion either expresses or implies facts , P can recover for misstatement of the underlying facts. Thus an opinion often contains the implied statement that its maker knows of no facts incompatible with that opinion. If P can show that D really knew facts incompatible with his opinion, P can recover.
Seller really knows that the foundation is badly cracked.
Today, statements involving legal principles are generally treated the same as any other statement. Thus if D's representation of law includes an implied statement about factual matters, P may rely upon the factual part of the statement. If the defendant predicts that something will happen, this will generally be treated as an opinion, which means that in most instances it cannot be relied on. But where D makes a statement as to her own intentions , this is generally treated as a factual representation that can be relied on. But today, most courts do allow recovery for negligent misrepresentation, even where only intangible economic harm is suffered.