Unidentified Speaker 1, counsel, and Unidentified Speaker 2, counsel, clashed in oral argument over whether pre-contract negotiations and a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) can support a claim of misrepresentation that would justify damages.

The exchange centered on whether the parties—described by opposing counsel as sophisticated commercial negotiators—ever reached the kind of agreement that would make later statements actionable. Unidentified Speaker 2 argued the facts reflect prolonged bargaining with no meeting on material terms and questioned whether continued negotiations can alone give rise to an "implied fraud by continued negotiations." Unidentified Speaker 1 responded bluntly that there was "absolutely no evidence of affirmative misrepresentations."

Why the dispute matters: the lawyers debated both liability and the measure of damages. Counsel discussed whether claimed harms should be treated as (a) lost property or (b) another category of loss, and highlighted that timing can be dispositive; Unidentified Speaker 1 stated, "There's 15 months until this expire," emphasizing remaining legal time the parties cited in argument.

Key factual and evidentiary points raised during argument included the scope of an NDA (which counsel said is not in the record) and whether its terms precluded discovery of material information. As one counsel put it during argument, "We don't know what it said. It's not in the record." The transcript also records counsel noting that "Mister Lee disclosed the NDA himself," and references to lease provisions and indemnity clauses entered into the negotiation record because of litigation concerns.

Court implications and next steps: the arguments focused on legal doctrines courts use to police commercial negotiations—whether vague future intent or routine bargaining should trigger fraud liability, and whether an NDA or contract provisions change that analysis. The transcript records the attorneys' debate and the judge's questions but contains no decision or formal ruling.

The record in the transcript is notably sparse in certain respects: several excerpts refer to document citations and record exhibits that are not reproduced or are unclearly transcribed in the argument, so the court-file specifics and any documentary evidence are not shown in this transcript.