Even assuming Dr. Stout’s allegations are true, his claim of fraud in the inducement fails because Dr. Stout’s reliance on any purported misrepresentations was neither justified nor reasonable in the face of open and clear contractual language to the contrary. Accordingly, Dr. Stout’s claim of fraud in the inducement cannot be supported.
Regarding the requirement of “justifiable reliance,” the Court has held that “justifiable reliance is an essential element of both fraud and negligent misrepresentation.” Helms v. Holland, 124 N.C.App. 629, 635, 478 S.E.2d 513, 517 (1996) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the arguments made in Section 7A herein are hereby incorporated by reference and independently form a basis for dismissal. A party’s
Regarding the requirement of “justifiable reliance,” the Court has held that “justifiable reliance is an essential element of both fraud and negligent misrepresentation.” Helms v. Holland, 124 N.C.App. 629, 635, 478 S.E.2d 513, 517 (1996) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the arguments made in Section 7A herein are hereby incorporated by reference and independently form a basis for dismissal. A party’s