Walid v. IRENE COUTURE, 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 plaintiffs proved reasonable reliance even though there was more they could have done to discover the fraud
• finding that “party perpetrating a fraud may not invoke a general ‘no representation’ clause to preclude evidence of earlier explicit misrepresentations”
• stating that \[t]he principles set forth in the Restatement accurately reflect the law in New Jersey\
• noting that “extrinsic evidence to prove fraud in the inducement is a well-recognized exception to the parol evidence rule”
• noting that “reasonable reliance” is a “critical element” of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim
• stating that \the parol evidence rule operates to prohibit the introduction of oral promises to alter or vary an integrated written instrument\ (quoting Ocean Cape Hotel Corp. v. Masefield Corp., 63 N.J. Super. 369, 378 (App. Div. 1960))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).