The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that Appellant did not justifiably rely on representations made by Appellees. Appellee prepared a one-and-a-half-page prospectus that said a truck stop complex contained a “super volume” gas station and a “high volume” convenience store. The prospectus also made representations as to the complex’s approximate gross and net yearly income. Appellant subsequently signed a lease for the truck stop complex. One year later, Appellant closed the complex after he lost money. He sued, making claims of justifiable reliance on the prospectus and tortious interference with contractual relations. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, and the Superior Court affirmed. The Court ruled that Appellant admitted in a deposition that he had relied upon his due diligence in completing the transaction and not upon any representation made by Appellees. Moreover, the Court held that the Gist of the Action Doctrine barred Appellant’s tort claims because they arose out of the contractual obligations between the parties, and the contract was not collateral.