Huron Tool and Engineering Co. v. Precision Consulting Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that are only able to only fraud in the inducement claims sufficiently plead create an exception to the economic loss fraudulent doctrine
• holding that the exception allows the plaintiff to “only pursue a claim for fraud in the inducement extraneous to the alleged breach of contract”
• holding that fraud-based claims that are \undergirded by factual allegations identical to those supporting their breach of contract [claims]\ are barred by the economic loss rule, but that fraud-based claims that are \extraneous to the contract\ are not (quotation simplified)
• noting that torts outside the doctrine’s scope include defamation, misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with contractual relations, and certain fraud in the inducement claims
• holding that when alleged “misrepresentations relate to the breaching party’s performance of the contract” they “do not give rise to an independent cause of action in tort” and the plaintiff “may only pursue a claim for fraud in the inducement extraneous to the alleged breach of contract”
• recognizing that where the alleged fraudulent statements relate not to the charac ter and quality of the goods but in fact deprive plaintiff of the ability to make an informed decision in choosing to enter into the contract, the economic loss doctrine does not bar the claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).