AKA Distributing Company v. Whirlpool Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a fraud claim could not be based on defendant’s representation that plaintiff would be its distributor “for a long time” when “duration was a term of the contract”
• examining only whether the subject matter was independent of the contract in ascertaining whether a fraud claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine
• holding misrepresentations concerning “a term of the contract” to be inactionable
• applying Minnesota law; Design Data Corp. v. Maryland Cas. Co. , 503 N.W.2d 552, 21 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 230 (Neb. 1993); Micro Data Base Sys., Inc. v. Dharma Sys., Inc. , 148 F.3d 649, 35 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 747 (7th Cir. 1998
• applying Minnesota law; Design Data Corp. v. Maryland Cas. Co. , 503 N.W.2d 552, 21 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 230 (Neb. 1993); Micro Data Base Sys., Inc. v. Dharma Sys., Inc. , 148 F.3d 649, 35 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 747 (7th Cir. 1998) (applying New Hampshire law
• “Whirlpool had no duty to disclose to arms-length distributors its unrelated plans to market private label products”.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).