Nevertheless, plaintiffs proceed to state specific things told to them and also withheld from them by Frazier, things which plaintiffs allege were misrepresentations of the true state ofPiece Goods and its successor, Silas Creek. Yet, the record reflects that at no time and in no way do plaintiffs allege that defendants had a duty of care to them, a duty which required that they be certain the information they were giving plaintiffs was complete or accurate. Without an allegation that defendants owed plaintiffs a duty of care regarding the information given, plaintiffs' claim must necessarily fail. 133 N.C. App. Defendants intended that plaintiffs rely on the information supplied by them for guidance in particular financial transactions, that is, the acquisition of stock in the entity emerging from bankruptcy.
Plaintiffs contend they have met their burden of showing a duty of care.
Furthermore, the record reflects that at no time and in no way do plaintiffs allege that Frazier had a pecuniary interest or obtained any pecuniary gain from plaintiffs' investments or transactions. Thus, again, plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing a duty of care owed them by Frazier, and their claim against him for negligent misrepresentation must necessarily fail. We further note that plaintiffs' complaint, on its face, has no allegation that Prudential provided them any information at all. Neither do plaintiffs allege Prudential owed them a duty of care. Larry G. Frazier acted as an agent and servant of defendant Prudential . . .