Richard v. A. Waldman & Sons, Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1967 · Torts

155 Conn. 343 (1967)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsMisrepresentationDamagesReal Estate Transactionsinnocent misrepresentationmaterial misrepresentationreal estate developerspecial means of knowledge

Facts

The defendant developer sold the plaintiffs a lot and model home pursuant to a written sales agreement stating the sale was subject to zoning ordinances. At closing, the defendant gave the plaintiffs a plot plan showing a twenty-foot sideyard on the southerly boundary, and both parties believed the house complied with zoning. About four months later, after boundary pins were set, the defendant discovered that the southeast corner of the foundation was only 1.8 feet from the southerly boundary and that use of the back door and stoop involved trespass onto adjoining property. The plaintiffs had relied on the defendant's representation about the sideyard and were unaware that it was false.

Issue

Whether a purchaser of land may recover damages for a seller-developer's mistaken but material misrepresentation about the location of a house and compliance with zoning, even absent proof of actual fraud or bad faith. A related issue was whether the deed barred the claim and whether the evidence supported damages and mitigation rulings.

Rule

An innocent misrepresentation is actionable if the declarant has the means of knowing, ought to know, or has the duty of knowing the truth. When a seller with special means of knowledge makes a material factual representation inducing a land sale, the buyer may recover damages for the misrepresentation and retain title, and the claim is not barred by merger into the deed because it concerns inducement rather than changing the contract. The proper measure of damages is the difference between the actual value of the property and its value had it been as represented, and the plaintiff need only act reasonably to minimize loss without surrendering a substantial right.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz bought a newly built house from Pine Harbor Homes, a residential developer in Columbus, Ohio. At closing, Pine Harbor gave her a site plan showing the detached garage sat entirely within the lot, but months later a survey revealed part of the garage crossed the side setback line; Pine Harbor had constructed the garage and prepared the placement documents, though no one proved it knew the plan was wrong.

If Lena sues for damages based on the inaccurate site plan, which argument most strongly supports recovery?

Explanation. A material misrepresentation may be actionable even if innocent when the declarant has the means of knowing, ought to know, or has a duty of knowing the truth. A developer responsible for construction and placement has special means of knowledge about where structures are located, so the buyer may rely on its factual representation even without proof of actual fraud or bad faith. (Derived from Richard v. A. Waldman & Sons, Inc. (1967).)