Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Robinson v. Tripco Investment, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided June 29, 2000No. 990490-CAPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBillings, Judge

126 I concur with the majority except to the extent that it holds that the merger doctrine precludes an action for negligent misrepresentation in this case. Because I conclude that the merger doctrine does not bar plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion. I would remand for a trial on the issue of negligent misrepresentation.

127 Under the merger doctrine, a deed is the final, integrated agreement of the parties and abrogates all prior agreements, whether written or oral. See, eg., Maynard v. Wharton, 912 P.2d 446, 449-450…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Martens Chevrolet, Inc. v. SeneyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1982
  2. Zimmerman v. KentMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1991
  3. Grube v. DaunCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1992
  4. Dugan v. JonesUtah Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Keller v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1991

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API