Pioneer Utilities Corp. v. Scott-Newcomb, Inc.

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 party’s intent with respect to representations of future acts is a “material existing fact” at the time of contract execution upon which a fraud claim may lie
• “The parol evidence rule forbids proof of extrinsic evidence to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument .... ”
• “[I]t is well settled that a general merger clause does not bar extrinsic evidence of a fraudulent misrepresentation.”
• “[A] contractual promise made with the undisclosed intention not to perform it constitutes fraud.”
• “[A] contractual promise made with the undisclosed intention not to perform it constitutes fraud.”
• “Before discussing the relevant law, it is well to bear in mind that the complaint before us neither asserts a breach of contract nor attempts to enforce any promise made by defendants.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).