[2014] SGHC 8

“ation representation was mere puff. Mere puff, as established in case law, is reserved for a particular type of self-evidently hyperbolic representation (see Kong Chee Chui and others v Soh Ghee Hong [2014] SGHC 8). It refers to the classic “hard sell” made off-the-cuff by a salesman. It does not encompass representati”

“First, I find that what Ken and Sally said to Sandra about SureWin4U was a statement of their opinion, not an actionable statement of fact. As the court put it in Kong Chee Chui v Soh Ghee Hong [2014] SGHC 8 at [4] (citing Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen [2013] 1 SLR 1310 at [93]): “…statements of fact must be disting”

“rochure had been conveyed to the claimant must also be considered. Such context is critical in assessing whether an implied representation has been made: see Kong Chee Chui and others v Soh Ghee Hong [2014] SGHC 8 at [6]. As stated by Lewinson LJ in Mellor v Partridge [2013] EWCA Civ 477 at [17]:”

“ctions, statements of opinion or belief, sales puffs, exaggerations and statements of law, all of which do not give rise to actionable misrepresentation: see Kong Chee Chui and others v Soh Ghee Hong [2014] SGHC 8 at [4]. Based on the evidence adduced, there is simply nothing to suggest that LPG did not hold this belie”

“and substantial inducement, such as where there exists between the parties a significant disparity in knowledge or gulf in business acumen or sophistication (Kong Chee Chui and others v Soh Ghee Hong [2014] SGHC 8 at [4]), this was clearly not the case here. In view of Mr Choo’s extensive background in investment and f”