Rutledge did not inform Miles of the second invoice or that it expected to receive additional monies from the project. Not surprisingly, Rutledge refused to pay Miles any portion of the monies received from the second invoice. Miles responded it should be allowed to present evidence of the alleged fraud and that the parol evidence rule does not exclude that evidence where the contract was induced by fraud. Our standard of review is to determine whether the facts pled, viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, state any valid claim for relief. We accept plaintiff's version of the facts and any reasonable inferences which may be drawn from them, and must resolve any doubts in plaintiff's favor.
Dismissal is proper only if the allegations in the petition clearly show plaintiff has no claim.
In dismissing, the trial court ruled the release covered all claims arising out of the McCormick Distillery project and also ruled that parol evidence could not be used to vary the terms of the release agreement. The parties agree that Kansas law applies. The twist in the present case is the clause in the release stating that Miles did not rely on any representations of Rutledge. Oak Industries, Inc. v. 596 F. Supp.