There is no indication that the disclaimer of warranty negates reliance on false representations made with or without intent to deceive. See also, Wisconsin Mystic Iceless Refrigerator, Inc. v. Minnesota Mystic Iceless Refrigerator, Inc., 180 Minn. 334, 230 N.W. 796 (1930); Roseberry v. Hart-Parr Co., 145 Minn. 142, 176 N.W. 175 (1920); Edward Thompson Co. v. Schroeder, 131 Minn. 125, 154 N.W. 792 (1915); 54 Minn.L.Rev. 846, 850 (1970); cf., Martin v. Guarantee Reserve Life Insurance Co., 279 Minn. 129, 155 N.W.2d 744 (1968). The only situation in which the Minnesota courts have held that a contract provision negatives a claim of fraud is where the provision explicitly states a fact completely antithetical to the claimed misrepresentations. For example, in Vint v. Nelson, 267 Minn. 490, 127 N.W.2d 177 (1964), the plaintiff sued pursuant to signed contract for a real estate broker's commission.

Despite the general rule that fraudulent statements must be about past or existing facts, Minnesota courts allow a cause of action for fraud to exist where the defendant makes a statement about the capabilities of its product. See Clements Auto. Co. v. Service Bureau Corp., 444 F.2d 169, 181-82 (8th Cir. 1971); National Equip. Corp. v. Volden, 190 Minn. 596, 598, 252 N.W. 444, 445 (1934); Wisconsin Mystic Iceless Refrigerator v. Minnesota Mystic Iceless Refrigerator, 180 Minn. 334, 336, 230 N.W. 796, 797 (1930); Schmitt v. Ornes Esswein Co., 149 Minn. 370, 371-72, 183 N.W. 840, 841 (1921). In Schmitt, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had told him that an ice machine was "as good as new, and could and would afford a sufficient degree of refrigeration to keep meat from spoiling."