with repeated promises the software would work. Id. at 833. However, the court found that the contract was not collateral to the fraud claim, but rather "at the heart” of it. Id. at 834. In Factory Mkt. v. Schuller Int'l, 987 F.Supp. 387 (E.D.Pa.1997), the defendant agreed to repair plaintiff’s leaky roof. However, after the repairs, the roof continued to leak. The court dismissed the plaintiff's tort claims because "without the contract, the plaintiff would have no claim at all.” 811 A.2d at 19. Thus, there was no independent duty from which a tort could arise. The eToll court did identify one case in which a fraud action was not barred by the doctrine, but the facts of that case are not similar to ours. Polymer Dynamics, Inc. v. Bayer Corp., 2000 WL 1146622 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 14, 2000) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v. Eaton
holding that promises of a future business relationship not contemplated by the sales contract would not be barred by the doctrine holding that the respondents statelaw claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action holding that a voluntary and knowing plea agreement is equivalent to a contract and the promises stated within must be fulfilled by the parties holding the contract was not authorized by law