Grumman Allied Industries, Inc. And Grumman Corporation v. Rohr Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that New York courts are disinclined to entertain negligent misrepresentation claims when business persons fail to take advantage of access to critical information
• holding an ordinary, arm's length business relationship did not give rise to a duty to disclose
• noting that reliance may be justifiable where “undisclosed information was only known by—and indeed only available to—the defendants, and incapable of discovery by the plaintiff”
• rejecting plaintiffs claim of a duty of disclosure because plaintiff had access to the alleged omitted information
• testing results that plaintiff could have but failed to review would have revealed falsity of defendant’s representations about one of its products
• following Danann Realty Corp.; “where parties to an agreement have expressly allocated risks, the judiciary shall not intrude into their contractual relationship.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).