In the case Whighton v. Integrity Inspections Inc., the plaintiff had retained the services of an inspector to check the condition of the building. The inspector had assured them that the home was in good condition. Upon moving in, the plaintiff discovered major problems in the home. What did the Court find?
A) The contract in question did not comply with the Statute of Frauds.
B) The contract in question was partly verbal and partly written.
C) There was negligent misrepresentation inducing a person to enter a contract, and the exculpatory clause did not apply.
D) The contract in question was not in English.
E) There were witnesses who testified under oath that the meaning of the intended agreement differed from what was written.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Court found that there was negligent misrepresentation, meaning that the inspector had made a false statement that induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract. The exculpatory clause did not apply because it only protected the inspector from claims arising from mistakes or oversights, not from intentional misrepresentations.

In the Case Whighton V