¶1concurring specially.
¶2I reluctantly concur with the judgment of the majority opinion. Although the disposition of this case is controlled by the rule regarding merger clauses applied by the majority opinion, I have some reservations about the wisdom and fairness qf that rule. The Supreme Court has made it clear that a merger clause does not bar an action to rescind a contract fraudulently induced, on the basis that fraud vitiates the contract, including a merger clause contained in it. City Dodge v. Gardner, 232 Ga. 766 (208 SE2d 794) (1974). If fraud can vitiate an entire contract where rescission is sought, perhaps our law ought to allow fraud to vitiate a merger clause where the defrauded party wishes to affirm the contract but seeks damages. In many instances, rescission is not an available remedy because a party will not be able to restore each party to. their original, pre-contractual positions. In such a case, if the contract happens to contain a merger clause, which is a fairly common feature, the defrauded party will have no remedy. In a very real sense, application of this rule can sub*239sidize iniquity.
¶3I am authorized to state that Judge Pope joins in this special concurrence.