and therefore Provimi is not entitled to rely on the alleged misrepresentations as a matter of law. PM Ag contends that Provimi could have discovered the absence of offsetting contracts by merely reading the Agreement and the pig contracts, which were identified in Schedule 3.9 of the Agreement. Indeed, Seventh Circuit precedent holds that a fraud claim will be thwarted when the terms of a written agreement directly contradict alleged oral misrepresentations. See Carr v. CIGNA Securities, Inc., 95 F.3d 544 (7th Cir.1996) (disallowing fraud claim based on oral misrepresentations that investments were safe when the agreements explicitly stated that the investments were highly speculative and risky); Frahm v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 137 F.3d 955, 961 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). In the cases cited by PM Ag, the contracts by
holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that plaintiffs could not satisfy reliance element when health plan summaries explicitly reserved for defendant the right to change the plan holding that where plaintiffs alleged that the plan suffered significant losses and requested that fiduciaries make good to the plan the losses to the plan they need not seek to recover for all plan participants allegedly injured by the fiduciary breach holding that a plan provision stating that the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications  are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute a part of the plan acted to incorporate into the plan a limitations provision found only in the summary plan description