Sound Techniques, Inc. v. Barry Hoffman
50 Mass. App. Ct. 425, 737 NE 2d 920 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A merger or integration clause in a negotiated commercial contract is enforceable against a claim of negligent misrepresentation, as the public policy that invalidates such clauses in cases of intentional fraud does not extend to misrepresentations that are merely negligent.
Facts:
- Sound Techniques, Inc. (Sound), a professional sound recording studio, was seeking to lease commercial space from Barry Hoffman.
- Hoffman's real estate agent, Michael McGloin, showed space to Sound's president, James Anderson, located above a bar called Boston Ramrod (Ramrod).
- When Anderson expressed concern about potential noise from Ramrod's planned expansion, McGloin assured him that the expansion was only for a dining area with background music and that the space would be suitable for a recording studio.
- Sound, represented by counsel, signed a lease with Hoffman containing a merger clause stating, 'Tenant acknowledges that Tenant has not been influenced to enter into this transaction nor has Tenant relied upon any warranties or representations not set forth in this instrument.'
- The lease was conditioned on an acoustical inspection, which Sound's engineer conducted during a weekday afternoon and deemed satisfactory.
- After relocating, Sound discovered Ramrod had installed a new sound system and a dance floor, creating substantial noise that disrupted its business.
Procedural Posture:
- Sound Techniques, Inc. sued Barry Hoffman in a trial court, bringing claims for breach of contract, deceit, and negligent misrepresentation.
- Following a trial, a jury found in favor of Hoffman on the claims of breach of contract and deceit.
- The jury found in favor of Sound on its claim for negligent misrepresentation and awarded damages.
- Hoffman filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which the trial court judge denied.
- Hoffman, as appellant, appealed the judgment against him to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts; Sound is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a merger clause in a commercial lease, which states that the tenant has not relied on any representations outside the written instrument, bar a claim for negligent misrepresentation made by the lessor's agent prior to the lease's execution?
Opinions:
Majority - Perretta, J.
Yes. A merger clause in a negotiated commercial lease bars recovery for a prior negligent misrepresentation. While public policy voids such clauses to protect against claims of fraud or deceit, this exception does not extend to claims of mere negligence. The court reasoned that fraud involves intentional misconduct, which justifies judicial intrusion on the freedom of contract. In contrast, negligence involves a failure of due care, not intentional wrongdoing. In a commercial context between sophisticated parties represented by counsel—where the bargaining process is not tainted by fraud, duress, or unconscionability—the policy favoring the certainty and finality of written contracts outweighs the harm of a negligent misstatement. Allowing a tort claim for negligence to override an express contractual disclaimer would improperly blur the line between tort and contract law and undermine the principle of freedom of contract.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the public policy exception established in Bates v. Southgate, drawing a sharp distinction between fraudulent and negligent pre-contractual misrepresentations. It reinforces the power of merger clauses in commercial agreements, providing greater certainty for contracting parties by limiting liability for careless statements made during negotiations. The ruling emphasizes the importance of due diligence for sophisticated commercial entities, signaling that they cannot rely on parol evidence to escape the terms of an integrated agreement unless they can prove intentional deceit. The court's explicit reservation of judgment on cases involving consumers or unequal bargaining power leaves the door open for different outcomes in non-commercial contexts.
Unlock the full brief for Sound Techniques, Inc. v. Barry Hoffman