or forecasted franchise sales, profits or earnings other than those contained in the UFOC, please describe these in the space provided below or write “None.” (Ex.A, Disclosure Acknowledgement Statement) In the space provided, each plaintiff wrote “None.” In the face of these clear and unambiguous disclaimers and non-reliance clauses, plaintiffs cannot plausibly claim that they reasonably relied on oral statements concerning likely profits and expenses in deciding whether to invest in a Quiznos franchise. “[I]t is simply unreasonable to continue to rely on representations after stating in writing that you are not so relying.” Hardee’s of Maumelle, Ark, Inc. v. Hardee’s Food Sys., Inc., 31 F.3d 573, 576 (7th Cir.1994); see also Rissman v. Riss-man, 213 F.3d 381, 384 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Associates In Adolescent Psychiatry, S.C. v.
holding hellorhighwater clause enforceable in the absence of fraud or deceit holding that a written nonreliance clause precludes any claim of deceit by prior representations in security transaction holding that in the context of federal immigration law the amount of loss to the victim of fraud or deceit does not refer to an element of the fraud or deceit but rather refers to the particular circumstances in which an offender committed fraud or deceit holding that enforcement of alleged oral representations made prior to execution of written contract was barred by the parol evidence rule and the explicit integration clause holding state law fraud and deceit claims to be preempted