Plaintiff purchased three Subway franchises under belief that the contract’s subletting options contained options for renewal after representations by the defendant. However, it turned out those representations were incorrect, with only one having a renewal option, which had a deadline the plaintiff could not reasonably meet. As a result, the plaintiff claimed they were defrauded and paid far more for the franchises than they otherwise would have. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, however, these deficiencies would have been apparent if they had only read the purchase contracts before signing them. As a result, the case was dismissed on summary judgment because the lack of renewal clause would have been apparent if plaintiff had done due diligence. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court decision, because while the defendant’s claims may have been misleading, that did not replace the plaintiff’s responsibility to perform their basic due diligence:
https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_00524.htm
