in combination with the salutary policy interests underlying such clauses discussed by the Second Circuit in Leon’s Bakery, militates in favor of finding that the clause in the instant Wells Fargo contract forecloses plaintiffs claim of breach of contract. Therefore, defendant Wells Fargo’s objections to the Recommended Ruling are sustained and its motion for summary judgment is granted as to Count One for breach of contract. Magistrate Judge Martinez also recommended that summary judgment be denied on Count Two of plaintiffs complaint for negligent misrepresentation because a material misrepresentation may make an otherwise enforceable contract voidable, including an exculpatory clause in such a contract. See Munroe v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 234 Conn. 182, 188 n. 4, 661 A.2d 581 (1995) (<HOLDING>). However, outside of the conclusory allegation
holding that a party may rescind a contract and avoid liability thereunder if the partys consent to the contract was procured by the other partys either fraudulent or nonfraudulent material misrepresentations holding that nonbreaching party must decide whether to rescind the contract or seek to enforce it when the material breach occurred rather than waiting until after trial and before judgment to decide and stating that nonbreaching party waived its right to rescind the contract based on the other partys material breach by 1 treating the contract as still in effect following the material breach and 2 by filing suit to enforce the contract holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach holding that allocation of damages may be appropriate if the contract limits the partys indemnity obligation holding that as a matter of law nonbreaching party was bound by the contract despite other partys material breach because nonbreaching party continued to demand performance under the contract following the material breach