The trial court's order for specific performance is not erroneous although it recognizes an oral contract that contradicts the written contract for deed. Parol evidence is admissible to show that the parties, in effect, never entered into a binding agreement because the written agreement was intended as a sham. 96-632 Ehlen vs. The issuance of building and occupancy permits is a discretionary function, and municipalities are immune from tort liability for those acts. Although appellants claim that the city did more than that here, the city cannot be held liable for the claim of allegedly misconstruing the building code.
Appellants have an independent duty to know the code as it relates to their construction project.
With respect to appellant's attorney malpractice claim and breach of fiduciary claim, the record does not contain evidence that respondent's alleged breach was the cause of appellant's loss, and summary judgment was appropriate. Although appellant's expert witness provided an explanation of how respondent's actions constituted malpractice, his causation opinion was conclusory, not stated in terms of failure to disclose. Further, it is not evident that an expert on the ethics of lawyers has expertise on issues of causation relating to investments. The Minnesota Fair Campaign Practices Act's prohibition of false campaign advertising is a permissible state regulation of campaign fraud that is not preempted by the Federal Election Campaign Act, which regulates federal campaign contributions and expenditures. The trial court did not clearly err in dismissing the indictment for false campaign advertising based on the record showing the grand jury may have applied an unconstitutionally overbroad standard.