The plaintiff wendling

Starting in Januaryplaintiff-appellant, Dr. The lease was successively renewed until June 30,

The plaintiff wendling

Clark, on the brief. We affirm in all respects. We consider the evidence of record in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. Wendling began raising and racing horses in She and her husband bought the Charter Acres horse farm in and bythere were approximately twelve to eighteen horses on the farm, including a race-horse named "Always Special.

The horse, however, did not respond to the routine treatment for colic, and was immediately transferred to the New Bolton Center at the The plaintiff wendling of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine.

It was euthanized the next day, August 12, A post-mortem examination revealed that it had an obstruction at the ileocecal orifice, which was infested with over tapeworms. Plaintiff Wendling had no formal education or training in the care and treatment of horses, and instead acquired any knowledge from "years and years and years of taking care of The plaintiff wendling.

Consequently, plaintiffs were using a rotation of three different drugs to control parasites in their horses: Strongid C, a product of defendant Pfizer, Inc. The Pfizer print advertisement for Strongid C 2X shows a "ghosted" or fading horse and rider, accompanied by the following text: But without Strongid C 2X, parasites could erase it all.

Your horse may look great on the outside, but inside parasites could be erasing his good health and performance potential. For control of the following parasites in horses: Pinworms adults and 4th-stage larvae: Oxyuris equi Ascarids adults and 4th-stage larvae: Notably, tapeworms are not among the parasites listed.

Wendling read the label for Strongid C after seeing the advertisement, and acknowledged that there was no indication on the label that the product was intended for the treatment of tapeworms. She neither relied on the advertisement for information as to what parasites the product would treat nor believed that Strongid C would treat all types of parasites.

Rather, it was her understanding that rotating different drugs was necessary because "certain worms were resistant to certain compounds," and that "different compounds kill different species. As noted, the horse died shortly after first displaying signs of colic due to a tapeworm infestation.

Plaintiffs then sued Pfizer for common law negligent misrepresentation and statutory violation of the CFA, alleging that the advertisement for Strongid C was false and misleading because it stated that it would "prevent and control parasites every day," but it did not prevent or control tapeworms, a type of parasite.

Following discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment. As to the common law claim, the judge found the challenged statement "prevent and control parasites every day" to be true. As to their common law cause of action, plaintiffs repeat their contention that defendant concealed a material fact in its advertising and thereby breached its duty to disclose its product may not be used for the prevention of tapeworms.

We reject all of these contentions. It vests private citizens with a cause of action under defined circumstances, providing that "[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of moneys or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of any method, act, or practice declared unlawful under this act.

An unlawful practice under the CFA is defined as: The act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.

In order to state a cause of action for consumer fraud, a plaintiff does not need to show reliance, and need only show proof of a causal nexus between the loss and the unlawful conduct, i. In support of their statutory claim, plaintiffs point to the phrase in the advertisement to "prevent and control parasites every day" as an affirmative misrepresentation because Strongid C did not prevent and control tapeworms, a parasite.

As noted, an unlawful practice under the CFA includes "[t]he act, use or employment by any person of any. An affirmative misrepresentation does not require a showing of knowledge of the falsity of the misrepresentation.

Courts in New Jersey have also recognized a distinction between misrepresentations of fact actionable under the CFA and mere puffery about a product that will not support relief. These statements, merely by the use of the word "you" and by the failure to include a disclaimer along the lines of "results may vary" are not transformed into a guarantee of universal and complete effectiveness and thus are not statements of fact actionable under the CFA.

Nor does the challenged phrase remotely suggest a guarantee or warranty. Rather, it simply denotes a category or genre of conditions that the drug treats, and that the drug treats more than one type of parasite.Wendling has proposed an experienced, appropriately-sized team consisting of himself, a firm partner, a firm associate, and two paralegals, if necessary, to work on this matter.

Defendants Wendling further allege that they are citizens of South Dakota and Plaintiff is a citizen of Oklahoma, and therefore assert that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

ยง by reason of diversity of citizenship and amount in . Starting in January , plaintiff-appellant, Dr. Wendling, leased apartment 1B from defendant-respondent sponsor/seller. The lease was successively renewed until June 30, Since then, Dr. Wendling has been a month-to-month tenant.

The Plaintiff Wendling was originally awarded damages for the breach of an oral contract for the purchase and sale of cattle to the Defendants Puls and Watson by the Harvey District Court; which the Defendants turned around and later appealed.

I NTRODUCTION Phillip Eugene Wendling (Plaintiff), v. Ted Puls and George Watson (Defendants), is a civil action lawsuit to recover damages for breach of an oral contract for the purchase and sale of cattle.

The case was decided in favor of Philip Eugene Wendling and the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $14,%(3). The Plaintiff Wendling Essay Sample.

The plaintiff wendling

The Plaintiff Wendling was originally awarded damages for the breach of an oral contract for the purchase and sale of cattle to the Defendants Puls and Watson by the Harvey District Court; which the Defendants turned around and later appealed.

The Plaintiff Wendling | Essay Example