Opinion ID: 1357555
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Actual and Justifiable Reliance.

Text: Foster does not argue on appeal that there was no actual reliance. Rather, he argues that the reliance was not justifiable, that Cross was put on notice as to the possible falsity of the misrepresentations, and that he had a duty to investigate further. Cousineau v. Walker , states the applicable standard for justifiable reliance in a land sale case. A buyer of land, relying on an innocent misrepresentation, is barred from recovery only if the buyer's acts in failing to discover defects were wholly irrational, preposterous, or in bad faith. 613 P.2d at 616. That standard is also applicable to a seller. While Cross' behavior may not have been that of a prudent man, it was not wholly irrational, preposterous, or in bad faith under the circumstances of this case. An actionable misrepresentation having been found, the purchase agreement was voidable at the will of the Crosses. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.