Richard v. A. Waldman & Sons, Inc. - 155 Conn. 343, 232 A.2d 307 (1967)

Rule:

An innocent misrepresentation may be actionable if the declarant has the means of knowing, ought to know, or has the duty of knowing the truth.

Facts:

Plaintiffs and defendant entered into a written agreement for the sale and purchase of a lot, together with a building then being used as a model home by the defendant. The sales agreement was on a printed form prepared and ordinarily used by the defendant in selling residential property, and it contained a provision that the sale was subject to the zoning ordinances. At the time of the closing, the defendant delivered to the plaintiffs a plot plan prepared by a registered engineer and land surveyor. The plan showed a sideyard of twenty feet on the southerly boundary of the lot, which was in compliance with the minimum requirements for the lot according to the zoning regulations on file with the town clerk of Vernon. A certificate of occupancy was erroneously issued based on the survey submitted by the defendant. Subsequently, however, the defendant discovered, when it set pins defining the boundaries of the premises, that the southeast corner of the foundation of the plaintiffs' house was only 1.8 feet from the southerly boundary of the lot. The plaintiffs instituted an action against defendant, alleging false representations in connection with the sale of the land, and seeking rescission of such sale. Plaintiff was awarded damages. Defendant challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Was the plaintiff entitled to damages due to defendant’s misrepresentations? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, holding that plaintiffs had reasonable grounds on which to attribute to defendant accurate knowledge as to the lot, as defendant's misrepresentations were statements of fact about which the defendant had special means of knowledge and involved a matter peculiarly relating to defendant's business. The plaintiffs could seek damages resulting from defendant's misrepresentations and at the same time retain title to the property, because such misrepresentations were in the nature of a warranty entitling plaintiffs to recovery.