Contract Integration As Tort Defense
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Torts1
Example wrong choices
18784_fellowship_lot_used_car · TORTS · Choice AFraud never applies to private sales between acquaintances.
Why it's attractive
The word 'never' is the visible overclaim marker. Fraud applies in every commercial context where the elements are met; the acquaintance status is irrelevant.
Why it's wrong
The word 'never' is the visible overclaim marker. Fraud applies in every commercial context where the elements are met; the acquaintance status is irrelevant.
18784_fellowship_lot_used_car · TORTS · Choice BRuth wins because reliance is presumed whenever a seller speaks.
Why it's attractive
The word 'presumed' is the visible overclaim marker. Reliance is an affirmative element the plaintiff must prove, and reasonable-reliance inquiry is required in every fraud claim.
Why it's wrong
The word 'presumed' is the visible overclaim marker. Reliance is an affirmative element the plaintiff must prove, and reasonable-reliance inquiry is required in every fraud claim.
18784_fellowship_lot_used_car · TORTS · Choice DDaniel's oral assurance was automatically incorporated into the bill of sale.
Why it's attractive
The call is in tort (fraud defense); the choice is in contract (parol evidence / contract integration). The choice answers a different question than the one asked.
Why it's wrong
The call is in tort (fraud defense); the choice is in contract (parol evidence / contract integration). The choice answers a different question than the one asked.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →