Stu:

I am not intending to start a fight, but I don't agree with the gist of this comment about a seller's duty to educate. Of course, the general rule is that a seller is under no duty to educate a buyer about the value of the product to be sold. The seller does not have to say anything about value at all. But, if a seller chooses to give factual information about value, rather than opinion, it had better not be misleading. And omissions can be just as deceptive as facts stated. In fact, if a seller chooses to make statements of fact about value, then they have undertaken a duty to give all of the critical facts so that their statement is not misleading. There are a lot of consumer protection laws out there, as well as the common law of fraud and deception.

Let's take a hypothetical example: An automobile valuation guide stops putting out its yearly guide for an extended number of years. Would you find it ethical or proper for your insurance company to offer to pay you based on the "current" volume of that guide for your totaled car, even though other guides show a markedly higher value?

Michael Siskin