Action for purchase price of furnace which defendant had contracted to buy. Petitioner’s agent had induced defendant to enter into a contract which was subject to acceptance by the home office and which contract contained a merger clause. Buyer, in his answer, alleged fraudulent statements made by agent concerning the condition of buyer’s old furnace. On appeal Held: Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings sustained in that answer did not set up a defense to the petition since defendant was precluded from repudiating the merger clause. The same court, in a decision handed down the same day, held tract by fraudulent material misrepresentations of an agent. Thus, the court, in the present case, recognized the power of the merger clause to prevent actions of rescission or defenses based on fraud of an agent.
Philip C. Sorenson,
Contracts—Effect of Merger Clause on Fraud by Agent,
36 Neb. L. Rev. 360
Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol36/iss2/8