Chase v. Columbia National Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a claim for “fraudulent inducement which alleges a misrepresentation of a present fact, not a promise of future intent, which is the inducement for the contract does not duplicate the contract claim and is not barred by the contract”
• Plapinger not applicable because defendant relied on a written term of the contract
• clause providing' that contract “supersedes all. prior agreements and understandings between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement” was too general
• clause providing that contract “supersedes all prior agreements and un- derstandings between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement” was too general
• “While New York law recognizes a cause of action for fraud in the inducement of a contract, this claim cannot be based solely upon the failure to perform the promises of future acts which constitute the contractual obligations themselves”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).