Court Opinion

ID: 9614359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:24:41.431602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:35.611533
License: Public Domain

MACY, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. I respectfully disagree with the policy of permitting a seller to hide behind an “as is” contract in order to justify not disclosing a material fact which would induce a buyer to refrain from buying the property.
The evidence is undisputed that the Rich-eys were well aware of the on-going problems with regard to the black sediment in their water system, and yet they did not say anything about the problems to their real estate agent or to the buyers. The evidence is also undisputed that, on separate occasions, the Patricks each inquired about the water supply at the Richey residence and were merely told that the water was hard. The evidence is clear that the water quality *811was a material fact for the Patricks to consider when they were purchasing the rural residence.
Restatement (Second) op ToRts § 551 (1977) provides a just remedy which protects unwary buyers from sellers who fail to reveal known latent defects, even though the purchase contract contains an “as is” clause.
The majority opinion states that an “as is” clause should not bar a claim when an allegation of fraud or misrepresentation has been made. It seems to me that it is equally as wrong for sellers to fail to mention a known water problem as it is for them to fraudulently or negligently misrepresent that such a problem does not exist; i.e., it is as wrong to fail to tell the truth as it is to tell an untruth.