Opinion ID: 723747
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Policy Against Fraud

Text: 41 Harsco also argues that Sections 2.05 and 7.02 should not be given effect because doing so would run afoul of the policy of deterring fraud which we recognized in Turkish v. Kasenetz, 27 F.3d 23 (2d Cir.1994). But Turkish does not help Harsco. In Turkish the contract (which was a settlement agreement) stated that the parties have had full and complete access to all books, documents, records, litigation files and other sources of information affecting all litigations[.] 27 F.3d at 25. Elsewhere the contract stated that certain representations were based on the advice of accountants, and that in the event those representations proved to be untrue, then plaintiff would only have one remedy (i.e., getting the loans repaid by the defendant). Id. at 25. The fraud alleged was that accountants never reviewed the accuracy of any of the representations. Id. at 27. We held the full disclosure clause to be no bar to suit. We emphasized that plaintiffs do not claim that they relied on defendant's oral representations; rather, they claim that they relied on written representations in the contract itself. Id. at 28. We further distinguished a contract (such as the one here) which specifically disclaims the existence of the representations which plaintiffs claim are fraudulent. Id. Because here Harsco claims that the representations outside the contract were fraudulent, and because the contract clearly delineates what representations have been made, Turkish does not apply.