‘Integration’ Versus ‘Non-Reliance’ Contract Clauses: Similar But Definitely Not the Same
Two staples of sophisticated commercial contracts are integration (aka “merger” or “entire agreement”) clauses and non-reliance (aka “no-reliance” or “anti-reliance”) clauses. While sometimes used interchangeably in casual conversation, and while having some functional similarities, there are important differences between the two clauses.
An integration clause prevents parties from asserting or challenging a contract based on statements or agreements reached during the negotiation stage that were never reduced to writing.
A typical integration clause reads:
“This Agreement , encompasses the entire agreement of the parties, and supersedes all previous understandings and agreements between the parties, whether oral or written. The parties hereby acknowledge and represent that they have not relied on any representation, assertion, guarantee, or other assurance, except those set out in this Agreement, made by or on behalf of any other party prior to the execution of this Agreement.
Integration clauses protect against attempts to alter a contract based on oral statements or earlier drafts that supposedly change the final contract product’s substance. In litigation, integration/merger clauses streamline issues for trial and avoid distracting courts with arguments over ancillary verbal statements or earlier contract drafts.here integration clauses predominate in contract disputes.
Where integration clauses predominate in contract disputes, non-reliance clauses typically govern in the tort setting. In fact, an important distinction between integration and non-reliance clauses lies in the fact that an integration clause does not bar a fraud (a quintessential tort) claim when the alleged fraud is based on statements not contained in the contract (i.e,. extra-contractual statements). *1, 2
A typical non-reliance clause reads:
“Seller shall not be deemed to make to Buyer any representation or warranty other than as expressly made in this agreement and Seller makes no representation or warranty to Buyer with respect to any projections, estimates or budgets delivered to or made available to Buyer or its counsel, accountants or advisors of future revenues, expenses or expenditures or future financial results of operations of Seller. The parties to the contract warrant they are not relying on any oral or written representations not specifically incorporated into the contract.”
No-reliance language precludes a party from claiming he/she was duped into signing a contract by another party’s fraudulent misrepresentation. Unlike an integration clause, a non-reliance clause can defeat a fraud claim since “reliance” is one of the elements a fraud plaintiff must show: that he relied on a defendant’s misstatement to the plaintiff’s detriment. To allege fraud after you sign a non-reliance clause is a contradiction in terms.
Lawyers and non-lawyers alike should be leery of integration clauses and non-reliance clauses in commercial contracts. The former prevents a party from relying on agreements reached during negotiations that aren’t reduced to writing while the latter (non-reliance clauses) will defeat one side’s effort to assert fraud against the other.
An integration clause will not, however, prevent a plaintiff from suing for fraud. If a plaintiff can prove he was fraudulently induced into signing a contract, an integration clause will not automatically defeat such a claim.
Vigortone Ag Prods. v. AG Prods, 316 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2002).
W.W. Vincent & Co. v. First Colony Life Ins. Co., 351 Ill.App.3d 752 (1st Dist. 2004)