Dallas Aerospace, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Cis Air Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the seller of an aircraft engine did not need to disclose to the arms-length buyer that the engine was not airworthy
• noting that in “the truly exceptional case . . . substantive unconscionability alone can vitiate a contractual duty” under New York law
• explaining that a “party cannot justifiably rely on a representation that is specifically disclaimed in an agreement” (emphasis added)
• finding as a relevant factor for dismissal of negligent misrepresentation claim the fact that plaintiff held the relevant expertise with which to assess the representations at issue
• dismissing negligent misrepresentation claim because, inter alia, plaintiff was found to have held the relevant expertise with which to assess the alleged misrepresentation at issue such that plaintiff could not plead justifiable reliance
• “[A plaintiff] cannot claim it relied on [defendant’s] special expertise [where] it is clear that [plaintiff] itself had the relevant expertise at issue.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).