Question

"Sippy was thinking of buying Christich’s house. Henoticed watermarks on the ceiling, but the agentshowing the house stated that the roof had beenrepaired and was in good condition. Sippy was nottold that the roof still leaked and that the repairs hadnot been able to stop the leaking. Sippy bought thehouse. Some time later, heavy rains caused water toleak into the house, and Sippy claimed that Christichwas liable for damages. What theory would he relyon? Decide. [Sippy v. Christich, 609 P.2d 204(Kan. App.)"

Answer 1

Sippy would rely on the theory of fraudulent misrepresentation to claim that Christich is liable for the damages caused by the leaking roof.

Step-by-step explanation:

Sippy would rely on the theory of fraudulent misrepresentation to claim that Christich is liable for the damages caused by the leaking roof. Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when someone intentionally makes false statements or conceals important information for the purpose of inducing another person to rely on those statements or information. In this case, the agent showing the house stated that the roof had been repaired and was in good condition, but failed to disclose that the repairs were unable to stop the leaking. Sippy bought the house based on this false information, and as a result, suffered damages when the roof leaked.

To establish a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation, Sippy would need to show the following elements:

1. The agent made a false statement or concealed material information concerning the roof's condition.
2. The agent knew or believed that the statement or information was false or misleading.
3. The agent intended to induce Sippy to rely on the false statement or information.
4. Sippy justifiably relied on the false statement or information.
5. Sippy suffered damages as a result of relying on the false statement or information.

If Sippy can establish these elements, he may be able to hold Christich liable for the damages caused by the leaking roof.