New York State Higher Education Services Corp. v. Lustig

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a representation that a trust had title was a direct contradiction of an express contractual provision explaining that JPMorgan and the trust made no guarantees pertaining to title, negating the element of reliance
• noting that a Rule 166(g) order is akin to a summary judgment and providing a standard of review on appeal
• noting that sophisticated business entities participating in an arm’s-length transaction should be expected to recognize red flags that others who are less experienced may not
• concluding post-trial that negation-of-warranty language was one of many red flags that in total negated justifiable reliance
• stating that a party may not rely on another’s representation when there are “red flags” indicating further investigation is needed
• finding that seller’s representation that the acreage was “open,” meaning unleased, was directly contradicted by the negation-of-warranty clause that spoke to a potential “failure of title”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).