I am going to try to simplify the cases and explain what they generally mean to sellers, agents, and buyers. First, it is important to remember that the court in a 1971 case abolished caveat emptor in the sale of new homes, but the court has on several occasions reaffirmed that caveat emptor is the law in used home sales. Caveat Emptor does not apply to the sale of new homes. In the Cashion case the buyer of a used home sued the seller and the listing agent after the buyer discovered that the basement leaked. The buyer was not successful because the court applied caveat Emptor and said in effect that neither the seller nor the seller's agent had an affirmative duty to disclose a material defect in the home, unless the defect was known and could adversely affect the health or safety of the buyer.
Affirmative duty means voluntary disclosure without being asked.
A material defect is best defined as one which would be a significant factor in a buyer's decision to buy or not buy a particular house. This case was followed by Ray where the buyer sued the seller after discovering that the used house purchased had termite damage so extensive that it threatened the structural integrity of the house. The court held in favor of the seller, citing caveat emptor. Most of of the lessons of caveat emptor should be obvious. A buyer's agent who knows of material defects is in a very different position.