What's New in the Law

Faust Printing, Inc. v. Man Capital Corp., 2009 WL 5210847 (U.S.Dist.Ct. N.D.Ill. Dec. 23, 2009)

After the lessee executed a lease with a financing company affiliate of a manufacturer of printing presses (there apparently was some confusion on the part of the lessee as to which company was to sign the lease as lessor) and received a printing press that allegedly did not function as expected, the lessee brought a fraud action against both the manufacturer and its finance company claiming that it had been fraudulently induced to sign the lease with representations that the lessee would have recourse against the manufacturer in the event of problems with the press. This court denies a summary judgment motion by the defendants, which motion argued that the hell-or-high-water clause in the lease precluded a fraudulent inducement claim. Without any explanation, the court mentions a previous summary judgment opinion holding that the hell-or-high-water clause was preceded by “ambiguous” language. In the “Net Lease” language quoted in the opinion, the only such language seems to be “Except as otherwise specifically provided herein or in any Schedule hereto,” but the court fails to point to any provision elsewhere which might modify the lessee's absolute and unconditional obligations.