Opinion ID: 1246023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: As is clause and parol evidence.

Text: Couturier claims the as is clause in the contract shifted the risk of any failure in the property to Holmes, and the parol evidence rule precludes the admission of evidence to prove otherwise. Couturier again misunderstands the impact of fraud on contracts. A provision in a contract that the buyer takes the property as is does not confer on the seller a general immunity from liability for fraud. Lingsch v. Savage, 213 Cal.App.2d 729, 29 Cal.Rptr. 201 (1963); see also Massler v. Smit, 279 A.D. 941, 943, 111 N.Y.S.2d 264, 266 (1952) (Fraud will vitiate any contract, regardless of the fact that the contract contains a provision to the effect that ... the party who claims the fraud entered into the contract with knowledge of the condition of the subject matter of the contract and agrees to accept the same `as is.'); Wolford v. Freeman, 150 Neb. 537, 547, 35 N.W.2d 98, 103 (1948) (A contract provision that the buyer takes the property as is does not prevent fraudulent representations from invalidating the contract.). A seller may not contract for the right to perpetrate a fraud. Nor may the parol evidence rule be invoked when it is sought to establish fraud as a ground for rescinding the contract. Baker v. Jewell, 77 S.D. 573, 577, 96 N.W.2d 299, 302 (1959). The as is clause in the purchase agreement does not shield Couturier from a claim of fraud, and Holmes is not precluded from introducing evidence of fraud.