Sound Techniques, Inc. v. Hoffman Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

Sound Techniques, Inc. v. Hoffman Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Sound Techniques, Inc. v. Hoffman | 450 A.2d 984 (Super.Pa. 1981) The parol evidence rule prohibits any extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the unambiguous terms of an integrated agreement. But does this rule apply to bar even extrinsic evidence of fraud? What about negligent misrepresentation? Sound Techniques versus Hoffman explores these questions. Sound Techniques was searching for a commercial space to open a recording studio in Boston and toured the second floor of a building owned by Barry Hoffman. During the tours, Sound Techniques noticed that a bar occupied the first floor and was in the process of expanding. So Sound Techniques told Hoffman’s leasing agent that it intended to use the space as a recording studio and asked about the extent of the bar’s expansion. The agent said the bar was just expanding its dining area, which would only play background music. After negotiations, Sound Techniques and Hoffman executed a lease agreement that included a merger clause stating that Sound Techniques entered the lease without influence from or reliance upon any representations outside of the written agreement. Shortly after moving into the space, Sound Techniques learned that the bar didn’t just expand its dining area and play background music as the agent had stated. It had actually installed a dance floor and upgraded sound system. As a result, the noise emanating from the bar was so loud that Sound Techniques couldn’t record at times and lost business. Sound Techniques then sued Hoffman for negligent misrepresentation. At trial, Sound Techniques introduced evidence of the agent’s statement about the bar expansion and claimed that it relied on that statement to enter the contract, despite disclaiming such extrinsic reliance in the merger clause. Hoffman objected, arguing that the agent’s statement was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. But the judge allowed the statement into evidence. Ultimately, the jury found Hoffman liable for negligent misrepresentation, and he appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/sound-t... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/sound-t... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries