|
4159 During negotiations with plaintiff about the rental of space in a shopping mall, a statement by the landlord's agent that certain other businesses would be occupying space in the mall accompanied by his pointing on a map to the sites they would be occupying was an implied assertion that those other businesses had already signed leases; that certain other businesses would be occupying premises near those plaintiff was considering renting was material to the negotiation; a clause in the lease signed by plaintiff providing that no representations had been made regarding other tenants in the shopping mall and that plaintiff was not relying on any such representations was sufficiently persuasive evidence that plaintiff was not relying on those representations to justify summary judgment for defendant in plaintiff's fraud action against the rental agent's employer.CitationHINESLEY v OAKSHADE (Missing Tenants) 135 CA4 289 [See: Lazar v SUPERCT 12 C4 631, T/AT 2/96; Engalla v Permanente 15 C4 951, T/AT 8/97]
|
|
