Court Opinion

ID: 9584125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:44:43.163416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:43.207573
License: Public Domain

Carley, Judge,
dissenting.
A review of the record in this case leaves one convinced that, indeed, plaintiff-appellee had a lousy vacation. However, the question to which that conclusion is a response is not the issue which we must decide from an appellate standpoint; nor was it the issue before the trial judge. I can even go so far as to agree with the majority that the circumstances show a breach of contract so that compensatory damages may be allowable. But I simply cannot find that the conduct of the defendant here rises to the level of fraud so as to authorize the award of punitive damages. Contrary to the majority, I do feel that plaintiff contends he was defrauded because what he got was not what he “saw” when he focused his eyes, which were filled with subjective anticipation, upon the rather grandiose enticements of defendant’s travel brochure. As the majority concedes, all of the facilities offered were available, albeit not at the time nor in the exact manner which plaintiff felt they should be. Evidently plaintiff desired — and the trial court thought he should obtain — access to all of the promised facilities upon demand. However, I do not find that the material containing the alleged representations by the defendant made such a “guarantee.” Apparently, the plaintiff feels that the defendant promised him: “You will have a good vacation.” I believe that a promisor’s compliance with such a subjective guarantee, varying in interpretation with every recipient thereof, is too speculative and nebulous to be capable of judicial measurement by a court charged with determining the existence of fraud. “Representations under the general head of ‘dealer’s talk’ are regarded as mere commendations, ‘puffing,’ or expressions of opinion, and do not, though untrue, constitute false representations which will avoid a contract. [Cit.] The representations to support a claim must relate to an existing fact and not a future event, unless it be an event which the party making the representation knows will never occur. Mere broken promises, unfulfilled projections, and erroneous conjectures do not meet this test."American Food Services, *57Inc. v. Goldsmith, 121 Ga. App. 686, 688 (175 SE2d 57) (1970).
McClure v. Thomas Cook, Inc., 158 Ga. App. 467 (280 SE2d 876) (1981) does not require a different result from that which I urge in this case. In McClure, the defendant made to the plaintiff a specific unambiguous representation (that there would be young people on plaintiffs tour) which was false, and plaintiff made out a prima facie case as to all of the other requirements for showing fraud. If the ruling of the majority here is to be the rule of law applicable to similar situations, no travel agency or other enterprise sponsoring or having involvement with any type of recreational facility could promote or produce a “vacation” without separately evaluating the subjective construction placed upon each of their representations by each and every prospective customer. I do not believe that our law providing for redress for fraudulent conduct is that broad. I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Judge Sognier joins in this dissent.