In Julius Castle Restaurant, Inc. v. Payne (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1423, in upholding a verdict on an intentional misrepresentation claim, the appellate court approved the trial judge's submission to the jury of the question, which the jury answered in the affirmative, whether the landlord defendant had defrauded the tenant plaintiffs notwithstanding the presence of an integration clause in the lease. (Id. at pp. 1442-1443.) The Julius Castle court, though, upheld the jury's verdict rejecting the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. (Ibid.) In Julius Castle, the extrinsic evidence of the landlord's promise to repair was not admissible to prove a breach of contract, because the lease explicitly stated it was the tenant's duty to maintain and repair the premises. (Julius Castle, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1442-1443.) The landlord's alleged promises directly contradicted the lease's terms, because the landlord and the tenant could not each be solely responsible for property maintenance and repair. (Ibid.)