Traditionally, the doctrine of buffering has been understood in law as a legal preference of sellers over buyers and thus as a case of caveat emptor (“beware buyers”). However, the doctrine actually had a twofold implication. In addition to protecting sellers and promoting advertising, it was also a legal inferiority or mockery of advertising, which is considered a paradigmatic case of sales pitch. By treating Puffs as frivolous, the doctrine sent a message that degraded advertising as a domain, consistent with widespread attacks on the rise of mass advertising.  Note: In general, a seller cannot be held responsible for false statements that amount to mere puffs. Nor can it be assumed that the swelling gives rise to an express guarantee. A special use for puff pieces can be in health journalism. Alternative medicine providers may not be able to make claims against false advertising due to laws, but they may be able to place stories and testimonials with journalists who can write as they wish under freedom of the press laws. Hiring health journalists to write articles can be a lucrative way to build the reputation of a product that doesn`t work.  In a legal context, the term originates from the English Court of Appeal`s 1892 case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, which dealt with the question of whether a refund should be paid if a flu repellent did not work.
The manufacturers had paid to announce that £100 would be paid in such circumstances and did not keep that promise. Part of their defense was that such a statement was just a “whiff of it” and should not be taken seriously. Although the defense ultimately lost the case, it maintained the principle that certain statements made by advertisers that were clearly not made seriously can be exempted from the usual rules for promises in open contracts. Puff piece is an expression for a journalistic form of puffery: an article or story of exaggerated praise that often ignores or downplays opposing views or evidence to the contrary.  In some cases, film, album or product reviews (e.g. , a new car or television) are considered “puffs” because of the evaluator`s real or perceived bias: a review of a product, film or event written by a benevolent reviewer or by someone who has a connection to the product or event in question, in the form of an employment or other relationship. For example, a large media conglomerate that owns both print media and record labels may ask an employee of one of its newspapers to review an album published by the conglomerate`s record company. The financial relationship between the product company or entertainment company and the examiner is not always as obvious as a cash payment. In some cases, a small group of reviewers may receive an exclusive invitation to test drive a new sports car or watch a new movie before it`s released.
This privileged access to the product may lead the inspector to conduct a biased examination, either out of a sense of obligation or a fear that failure to produce a “puffed” part will result in the loss of future preview privileges. In some cases, the risk of bias in invitation-only preview sessions is significantly increased if reviewers are flown to the site for review, given chic hotel rooms, and food and drink are provided during the actual review. The most egregious cases of this situation occur when, instead of inviting reviews to headquarters or another logical location, the company issues paid tickets to Hawaii or Mexico and holds the premiere of the film or product launch there. While some journalists assert their professional independence and integrity and insist on creating unbiased criticism, in other cases, a writer may succumb to pressure and write a biased “puff” praising the product or event while refraining from discussing shortcomings. In some cases, “puff pieces” claim to deliver a critique of the product or event, but simply deliver peacock words (“an incredible shot”; “revealed” for “announced” or “said”), bizarre words (“probably one of the most important albums of the 2000s”); “Maybe one of the main bands of the 2010s”) and a tabloid-style filler that is peripheral or unrelated to judging the qualities of the product or event (“during filming, there were rumors that romantic sparks flew between the two co-leaders, often spoken to each other on set”). One of the most famous cases dealing with Puffery was the English Court of Appeal`s Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company case in 1892, which dealt with the question of whether a reward should be paid if a flu vaccination device did not work. The manufacturers had paid for the advertising by stating that £100 would be paid in such circumstances, but refused to keep that promise.
Part of their defense was that such a statement was a “mere puff” and should not be taken seriously. Although the defense ultimately lost the case, the court also recognized that some statements made by advertisers would not give rise to liability. In particular, the court suggested that the promises of healing that appeared in the Carbolic Smoke Ball advertisement were not serious enough to establish legal liability. For this reason, it justified the decision to hold the company liable by another party to the complaint, which mentioned the money deposited with the bank. “Puffing.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/puffing. Retrieved 27 September 2022. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has defined puffery as “a term commonly used to refer to exaggerations reasonably expected of a seller with respect to the quality of his product, the truth or falsehood of which cannot be accurately determined.”   Nglish: Puffing translation for Spanish speakers The legal history of Puffery is part of the history of the mass market. In the eighteenth century, the term “puff” was important for auction law, where it implied the action of a person employed to bid at auction to increase the price. This person was known as a tampon. In 1776, Lord Mansfield in England undermined the use of stamps by defining them as fraud, a decision that led to nearly a century of debate over the extent of the ban and its impact on the validity of auctions.
 Meanwhile, beginning in the 1820s and with increasing intensity after the mid-nineteenth century, the term “puff” was used in English law in its earlier popular sense, and thus with the opposite implication. Instead of fraud that could undermine the validity of transactions in the market, the pouf represented inertia or futility that no one could influence, and thus also the opposite of legally serious discourse.