## Facts

- A. Waldman & Sons, Inc., a developer, marketed a residential lot and house to Richard using a plot plan it prepared or supplied.
- The plot plan represented that the house sat with a 20-foot side yard, matching the minimum side-yard requirement under local zoning regulations.
- Richard relied on the plot plan’s setback depiction and purchased the property.
- After closing and delivery of deeds, the house was discovered to be approximately 1.8 feet from the boundary line, not 20 feet.
- The inaccuracy stemmed from a mistake regarding boundary location and/or zoning assumptions, reflected in an incomplete or inaccurate plan.
- Richard sued in tort for false representation (misrepresentation), alleging he was induced to purchase by the inaccurate plan and suffered loss from the diminished yard and nonconformity.

## Issues

1. Whether a seller-developer may be liable in tort for misrepresentation when it supplies a materially inaccurate plot plan that induces a sale, even if the seller did not know of the mistake at the time of the transaction.
2. Whether the buyer’s reliance on the plot plan was legally sufficient to support recovery for misrepresentation and resulting damages.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Richard.
- The court held that a seller may be liable in tort for misrepresentation in connection with a sale when the buyer is induced to act in reliance on the seller’s material representations.
- The court upheld the finding that Richard relied on the seller-supplied plot plan depicting a compliant 20-foot side yard.
- The court rejected the argument that lack of contemporaneous knowledge or intent to deceive defeated liability, treating the claim as actionable misrepresentation based on failure to ensure accuracy.
- The court upheld the trial court’s determination that the misrepresentation caused compensable loss given the substantial disparity between the represented and actual setback.

## Legal Principles

- A party to a sale may incur tort liability for material representations that induce the other party to contract and that prove false, causing loss.
- A seller who provides factual representations about property characteristics in a transaction has a duty to use reasonable care to ensure those representations are accurate.
- Misrepresentation liability does not require proof of fraudulent intent when the claim rests on non-intentional misrepresentation and the elements of falsity, materiality, reliance, and damages are established.
- Contractual sale relationships do not bar tort recovery when the buyer’s assent is procured by actionable misrepresentations.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed tort recovery for a homebuyer who reasonably relied on a developer’s inaccurate plot plan depicting a zoning-compliant setback, holding that the seller had a duty to ensure the accuracy of such material representations and could be liable even absent intentional deceit.


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