Kronenberg v. Katz

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that a court “would likely look to decisions of other states interpreting the identical provisions in their versions of the Uniform Act”
• observing that a court “would likely look to decisions of other states interpreting the identical provisions in their versions of the Uniform [Securities] Act”
• noting that “many learned authorities state that typical integration clauses do not operate to bar fraud claims based on factual statements not made in the written agreement” and citing such authorities
• accommodating “contractual freedom and efficiency concerns” as well as a “public policy ... intolerant of fraud”
• explaining that because an LLC agreement “d[id] not expressly provide for [the purported beneficiary] to benefit from its terms . . . the plain language of the LLC [a]greement preclude[d] [any] attempt to claim third-party beneficiary status”
• holding an extra-contractual fraud claim is barred where the agreement contains “a clear anti-reliance clause by which the plaintiff has contractually promised that it did not rely upon statements outside the contract’s four corners in deciding to sign the contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).