According to plaintiffs, defendants intentionally mislead them into believing that the Property contained a greater area than that which is set forth in the Contract. Specifically, plaintiffs assert that defendants told them that the Property extended on its western border to the line demarked by the stone work on the adjoining property when, in fact, the border is a straight line that is located before the stone work. Defendants do not dispute that the border in issue is located at the point alleged by plaintiffs. They do, however, deny that they ever made any misrepresentations concerning the border. Additionally, they note that the correct description of the boundaries of the Property is set forth in the Contract.
Defendants attack the fraud claim on several grounds.
Only two of these need be addressed, since they defeat the second cause of action. Here, defendants contend that assuming, arguendo , the truth of plaintiffs' allegations that they misrepresented the boundaries of the Property, no fraud claim can be asserted by plaintiffs because, as a matter of law, defendants cannot establish the element of reliance. Defendants' argument rests upon the merger provisions of the Contract and plaintiffs' failure to take reasonable steps to determine the boundaries of the Property. The Contract contains three clauses which may be viewed as relevant to the issue of representations and merger involved at bar. That paragraph states that the Property is being sold subject to certain exceptions set forth therein.