In order that a person may be entitled to rescind or maintain an action for deceit, the representations must have been of such a character, and must have been made under such circumstances, that he had a right to rely on them. Representations, for instance, amounting merely to commendatory expressions, or exaggerated statements as to value, or prospects, or the like, as where a seller puffs up the value and quality of his goods, or a man, to induce another to contract with him, holds out flattering prospects of gain, are not regarded as fraudulent.29

Simplex commendatio non obligat. As we have seen, the buyer of property is not justified in relying on the seller's representation as to its value.30 Some of the courts hold, however, that a statement by the seller of property that he gave so much for it is a representation of fact upon which the buyer may rely, and that, if it is knowingly false, it amounts to fraud.31 Other courts hold that such a statement is merely a commendatory expression, on which the buyer must not rely.32 But, even where the statement would ordinarily be regarded as a mere commendatory expression 33 or expression of opinion,84 the circumstances may be such as to justify the other party in relying on it, as, for instance, where the parties do not meet on equal terms by reason of the possession of special knowledge by the party making the statement, or there is a relation of confidence between them. In such a case the statement may be fraudulent.

28 Cason v. Cason, 116 Tenn. 173, 93 S. W. 89. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 94; Cent. Dig. §§ 420-430.

29 GORDON v. PARMELEE, 2 Allen (Mass.) 212, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 189; Deming v. Darling, 148 Mass. 504, 20 N. E. 107, 2 L. R. A 743; Hughes v. Manufacturing Co., 34 Md. 318; Kimball v. Bangs, 144 Mass. 321, 11 N. E. 113; Lockwood v. Fitts, 90 Ala. 150, 7 South. 467; Southern Development Co. v. Silva, 125 U. S. 247, 8 Sup. Ct. 881, 31 L. Ed. 678; Dillman v. Nadlehoffer, 119 111. 567, 7 N. E. 88; Jackson v. Collins, 39 Mich. 557; Burns v. Mahannah, 39 Kan. 87, 17 Pac. 319; Patten v. Glatz (C. C.) 87 Fed. 283; Macklem v. Fales, 130 Mich. 66, 89 N. W. 581 (representations as to future possibilities). See the cases cited in notes 56, 12, supra. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 94; Cent. Dig. §§ 420-430.

3o Ante, p. 279.

31 Sandford v. Handy, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 260; Pendergast v. Reed, 29 Md. 398, 96 Am. Dec. 539; Salm v. Israel, 74 Iowa, 314, 37 N. W. 387; Weidner v. Phillips, 39 Hun (N. Y.) 1; Ives v. Carter, 24 Conn. 392; Strickland v. Gray-bill, 97 Va. 602, 34 S. E. 475. See "Sales," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 38; Cent. Dig. §§ 65-85.

32Tuck v. Downing, 76 I11. 71; Medbury v. Watson, 6 Metc. (Mass.) 246, 39 Am. Dec. 726; Cooper v. Lovering, 106 Mass. 77; Hemmer v. Cooper, 8 Allen (Mass.) 334; Bishop v. Small, 63 Me. 12; Holbrook v. Connor, 60 Me. 578, 11 Am. Rep. 212; Sowers v. Parker, 59 Kan. 12, 51 Pac. 888. See, also, Cole v. Smith, 26 Colo. 506, 58 Pac. 1086. See "Sales," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 38; Cent. Dig. §§ 65-85.

33Teachout v. Van Hoesen, 76 Iowa, 113, 40 N. W. 96, 1 L. R. A. 664, 14