Negligent Misrepresentation Plaintiffs' alternative claim for negligent misrepresentation also fails. Nothing in the record shows defendants negligently informed plaintiffs about the property. As we have already noted, the evidence indicates the owners never advised their agent, Holland, of the severity of the septic system problems. They simply told Holland the problem had been remedied and this information was communicated to plaintiffs at least by the closing date. Even assuming, arguendo , defendants made intentional or negligent misrepresentations to plaintiffs regarding the property, we conclude that under the circumstances, plaintiffs' reliance upon this information was unreasonable and therefore plaintiffs' claims must fail.
Justifiable reliance is an essential element of both fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
107 N.C. App. We note plaintiffs were already in the business of operating family care facilities and were familiar with the regulations governing such homes. Had plaintiffs complied with the state inspection provision which they added to the Offer to Purchase and Contract, the septic system deficiencies would have been revealed. Under these facts, we cannot conclude that plaintiffs would have been justified in relying upon a fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation of defendants as to this issue. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' assignments of error as to fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation are overruled.