2986 REVIEW DENIED If a contract for the sale of a company's assets unambiguously provides that the purchaser does not assume the seller's liabilities, extrinsic evidence should not be considered to vary its terms; if sufficient consideration is given in exchange for a company's assets, the fact that a director of the predecessor is also a director of the successor is not sufficient to justify the conclusion that there has been a de facto merger; the continuing product line theory of successor liability applies only to claims based on strict products liability.CitationFRANKLIN v USX (Asbestos Successor) 87 CA4 615 [See: Ray v Alad 19 C3 22; PG&E v Thomas 69 C2 33; Marks v Minnesota Mining 187 CA3 1429; Monarch v Professional 75 CA4 1213, T/AT 12/99; Maloney v American 207 CA3 282; Chaknova v Wilbur-Ellis 69 CA4 962, T/AT 3/99]
|
|