of Contracts § 214 cmt. c (1981)). In addition, many other courts have “held or recognized that an ‘as is’ provision in a contract for the sale of realty does not bar a vendee’s claim based on allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or nondisclosure.” Frank J. Wozniak, Annotation, Construction and Effect of Provision in Contract for Sale of Realty by Which Purchaser Agrees to Take Property “As Is” or in Its Existing Condition, 8 ALR 5th 312, 328 (1992). While the Maacks assert fraud as an exception to the “as is” and integration clauses in this case, they have not briefed whether negligent misrepresentation is also an exception, nor have they differentiated between fraudulent nondisclosure and fraudulent concealment. See Kaye v. Buehrle, 8 Ohio App.3d 381, 457 N.E.2d 373, 376 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Given the lack of briefing, we do not address
holding that in fraud and nondisclosure claims a plaintiff must show actual and justifiable reliance recognizing fraud to be a known misrepresentation or a nondisclosure holding that as is clause bars claim for fraudulent nondisclosure but permits claim for positive fraud holding estoppel claim could not lie in tort where the facts that support the claim could not support a claim for fraud or misrepresentation holding that summary judgment on chapter 93a claim is appropriate when summary judgment is granted on fraud claim and chapter 93a claim is solely based on the underlying claim for common law fraud