Ingaharro (P) purchased a house from D. The agreement contained a merger clause stating that all representations were expressed in writing. The writing made no reference to the water supply. D had experienced problems with water supply, and all the neighbors in the surrounding area also experienced problems. D made no statements regarding water supply to P. P observed a swimming pool in the yard and also that the toilets had not been flushed but made no inquiry regarding sources of water. P took possession, and the water supply failed. The problem could not be fixed. P sued D for negligence misrepresentation. The trial master determined that the water supply was not readily discoverable by P and as such D made a negligent misrepresentation. The Superior Court agreed, and D appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.