Tammy Bauer hires consulting firm Accent Pointe to find a buyer for the formula and trade name of her pest repellent, NO BUGGZ. Bauer tells Accent Pointe to tell prospective buyers that NO BUGGZ is organic and has no health risks to humans. Bauer knows that NO BUGGZ has serious negative health effects on humans even when used as directed. Consequently, Accent Pointe tells Scotts Company that NO BUGGZ has no serious negative health risks to humans when used as directed. The written purchase contract that Scotts signs with Bauer does not represent that NO BUGGZ has no health risks to humans; the contract contains an exculpatory clause stating that Bauer is not bound by Accent Pointe’s representations, unless they also appear in the written contract. Two years after Scotts buys NO BUGGZ, Scotts is subjected to consumer lawsuits claiming that NO BUGGZ is causing health problems for its users. Is Bauer liable to Scotts for misrepresentation?