The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Capacity as Receiver v. Yale A. Fisher — Eid, J., Concurring

Summary

Justice Eid concurs in the judgment because Fisher's fraud and contractual good-faith claims fail, but she rejects the majority's reliance on contract ambiguity to avoid addressing the effect of the Colorado Credit Agreement Act on extrinsic evidence. She reasons that the alleged software error was not an intentional misrepresentation, that an oral promise not to foreclose was barred by the statute of frauds, and that other alleged misrepresentations or omissions did not induce actionable reliance by Fisher. Justice Coats, dissenting, would have affirmed reversal and remand for a new trial because the conflicting change-agreement provisions created an ambiguity requiring consideration of extrinsic evidence.