stability. Posner, supra. 8 . The Franchisees cite Carousel’s Creamery, LLC v. Marble Slab Creamery, Inc., a case from a Texas state court, for the proposition that a merger clause does not prevent a plaintiff from showing that he justifiably relied on a UFOC. 134 S.W.3d 385. The Franchisees argue that, because the Federal Trade Commission has promulgated rules governing the disclosures made in a UFOC, prospective franchisees who receive the disclosures are entitled to rely on them for purposes of a negligent misrepresentation claim, notwithstanding a disclaimer of reliance in the franchise agreement. However, this decision was based on an interpretation of the Texas parol evidence rule, which, unlike the Pennsylvania rule, does not bar claims of fraud in the inducement. Id. at 395 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation omitted). This rule is
holding that the only fraud that could vitiate the contract is fraud that would invalidate the merger clause itself ie fraud relating to the merger clause or fraud that invalidates the entire contract including the merger clause quoting 3 corbin contracts  578 holding economic loss rule did not bar recovery of tort damages on statutory fraud claim based upon fraudulent inducement holding that under federal law the party seeking to obviate the forum selection clause must prove that the inclusion of the clause was the result of fraud or coercion  fraud in the inducement as to the entire contract is not enough holding that consistent with parol evidence rule a merger clause can be avoided based on fraud in the inducement holding that where a merger clause is included in the written contract alleged collateral promises will not be enforced through fraud because under fraud the reliance must be reasonable