A door-to-door vendor of vacuum cleaners tells a potential customer that the vacuum cleaners "slurp up dirt faster than a sweat-sopped boy could down a cold drink". After purchasing one of the vacuum cleaners, the customer discovers that it does not clean the cat hair off his carpets. Does the customer have legal recourse against the vendor?

a. Yes, he can sue the vendor for active fraud.

b. No, because the vendor's sales puffery would not be considered fraud.

c. Yes, he can sue the vendor for undue influence.

d. No, because the vendor has made a unilateral mistake.

b. No, because the vendor's sales puffery would not be considered fraud.

Explanation:

A fraud is intentional deception to gain wrongful advantage. The vendor of vacuum cleaner does not have the intention to deceive customer. The vendor tells the customer that the vacuum cleaner slurps the dirt but the cat hair cleaning was not discussed. The vacuum cleaner does not clean the cat hair from the carpet but this was not mentioned by the vendor at the point of sale.

explanation: doctrine of respondeat superior is a legal doctrine that is commonly used in tort. this principle makes an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts done by an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency.

can your question and add a list so i can you out?