The courts allow a certain amount of latitude for «mere puffery», because a reasonably alert person is not justified in placing reliance on
a mere statement of opinion, judgment, expectation or conjecture, all of which may be expressed in an uncertain and hazy way.
Not exact matches
I think it's clear that if the same standard were applied in the Mann case, none
of the allegedly defamatory
statements are specific enough to be considered factual accusations rather than
mere opinions.
I would qualify this final
statement with the
opinion that the
mere act
of providing a binding interpretation
of EU law on the basis
of the questions asked to it by the District Court would not in itself be to err, which is all that the Court «has been asked to [do]» at this stage.