Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and Franchise Agreements has repeated itself again and again, so that each merger and integration clause has eliminated any misrepresentation that preceded it. The Court disagrees with Defendants that the merger and integration clauses in each Franchise Agreement do not come into play with the course of misrepresentations about the continuous development of franchises. The Court will give contractual effect to the repeated expression by these two sophisticated parties. C. The Court finds another convincing leg 73, 576 (7th Cir.1994); Barrington Press, Inc. v. Morey, 752 F.2d 307 (7th Cir.1985); Fruit Industries Research-Foundation v. National Cash Register Co., 406 F.2d 546 (9th Cir.1969); Haque Travel Agency, Inc. v. Travel Agents Intern., Inc., 808 F.Supp. 569 (E.D.Mich.1992) (<HOLDING>); Hengel, Inc. v. Hot ‘N Now, Inc., 825 F.Supp. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the elevated class c felony penalty for the offense of criminal recklessness by shooting a firearm from a vehicle into a place where people are likely to gather did not shock public sentiment or violate the judgment of reasonable people because among other things the use of a vehicle would make it less likely that the person would be identified which in turn would make it more likely that the offense would be committed (B) holding agencys letter to plaintiff repudiated licensing agreement by stating agency would refuse to make payments and that requests for reconsideration would be denied (C) holding that an eleventhhour amendment that would require extensive additional discovery would be prejudicial to the defendants (D) holding that when plaintiffs bring a facial challenge to a law it must be established that there are no set of circumstances under which the law would be valid (E) holding that statements of franchisor that total investment of capital necessary would be about 85000 that agency would turn around within 12 to 18 months that agencys gross profit once business was established would be approximately 300000 and that franchisor would play substantial role in operation of franchise were not fraudulent under michigan law
Output (English): holding that when plaintiffs bring a facial challenge to a law it must be established that there are no set of circumstances under which the law would be valid