Opinion ID: 2521038
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effect of the Contract Inspection Clause

Text: [¶ 28] The sellers also contend the duty to disclose was somehow delegated to the buyers by contract. This argument puts the proverbial cart before the horse. The fraudulent misrepresentations, as determined by the trial court, occurred before the contract was entered into and were the inducement to enter into the contract reasonably relied upon by the buyers. The fact that, once they entered into the contract, the as is clause and inspection provisions were in effect did not excuse or nullify the original fraudulent representations, intended inducement, and reasonable reliance which led to the contract being made. An as is clause will not relieve the sellers of liability in the case of an actual misrepresentation or fraud. Richey v. Patrick, 904 P.2d 798, 803 (Wyo. 1995).