The determination as to whether a particular statement is an expression of opinion or an affirmation of a fact is often difficult, and frequently is dependent upon the facts and circumstances existing at the time the statement is made.' (Willson v. Municipal Bond Co. (1936) 7 Cal.2d 144, 150 [59 P.2d 974].) Decisions have evidenced a trend toward narrowing the scope of representations which are considered opinion, sometimes referred to as 'puffing' or 'sales talk,' resulting in an expansion of the liability that flows from broad statements of manufacturers or retailers as to the quality of their products. Courts have liberally construed affirmations of quality made by sellers in favor of injured consumers. (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 112 [120 Cal.Rptr. 681, 534 P.2d 377, 7 A.L.R.3d 1282]; see also 55 Cal.Jur.3d, Sales, § 74, p. 580.) It has even been suggested 'that in an age of consumerism all seller's statements, except the most blatant sales pitch, may give rise to an express warranty.' (1 Alderman and Dole, A Transactional Guide to the Uniform Commercial Code (2d ed. 1983) p. 89.)
Courts in other states have struggled in efforts to create a ...