Court Opinion

ID: 9584124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:44:43.160066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:43.207054
License: Public Domain

Shulman, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
In this case the claims and representations for a vacation paradise far exceeded ordinary advertising “puffing.” If the *56appellants did not know that the adverse conditions existed and that their brochure was totally inaccurate, it was their business to determine its accuracy before its exploitation to the public. To me, this is fraud; the change in the travel arrangements and other material misrepresentations show a total disregard for the rightful expectations of the customer. The final reality of what he received in exchange for his money was just the opposite of what appellee was led by appellants to expect. I consider this case closely akin to McClure v. Thomas Cook, Inc., 158 Ga. App. 467 (280 SE2d 876) (1981), and I therefore agree with the majority and would affirm.