Reasonable Reliance? - Biosilk Spa vs. HG Shopping Centers, LP (Tex.App.- Houston 2008)

Summary judgment appeal in Galleria signage dispute turns on reasonableness of reliance.

Appellant BioSilk Spa, L.P., f.k.a. One Marengo, L.P. appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee, HG Shopping Centers, L.P., on appellant's claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel. The court of appeals concludes that HG conclusively negated the element of reasonable reliance and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Biosilk Spa, LP v. HG Shopping Centers, LP (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 8, 2008)(Yates) (commercial lease cases, fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel, no reasonable reliance)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Brock Yates Before Price, Justices Brock Yates and Guzman
14-06-00986-CV Biosilk Spa, L.P., f.k.a. One Marengo, L.P. v. HG Shopping Centers, L.P.Appeal from 234th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Reese Rondon

At issue in this dispute is HG's refusal to allow BioSilk to post on the exterior walls of the Houston Galleria a sign containing the tag line "Chi Color Salon."[1] Under a lease agreement (Lease) dated December 31, 2002, BioSilk rented space in the Galleria from HG. The terms of the Lease limited signage to BioSilk's trade name and specifically required BioSilk to obtain HG's approval before posting any signs, either inside the mall or on the exterior walls of the mall.[2] The Lease also contained "merger" and Adisclaimer of reliance" language stating that all changes or additions to the agreement between the parties would be in writing and that BioSilk would not rely on any representations, oral or otherwise, not contained in the Lease.[3]