In Hearne v. Statesville Lodge filed May 15, 200l, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reaffirmed the doctrine known as “Buyer Beware”. In this case, purchasers brought suit for misrepresentation against the seller and real estate broker after purchasers learned that the septic system could not handle the purchaser’s increased volume due to purchaser’s commercial use of the property. The seller and the listing agent knew the purchaser intended to open a restaurant on the premises and allegedly told the purchaser that the septic system was adequate for that purpose. Relying on that information, the purchaser failed to make any independent investigation concerning the septic system and purchased the property. After closing, purchasers could not obtain a permit from the health department to open a restaurant because the septic system was inadequate.
In holding for the seller and the listing agent, the Court of Appeals held that where the seller and listing agent did nothing to trick the purchaser, did nothing reasonably calculated to induce purchaser to forego an investigation of the property, and where the purchaser had a full opportunity to inspect the property and determine its suitability, the purchaser could not reasonably rely upon a statement made by the seller and the listing agent. The Court of Appeals recited a number of North Carolina cases which have held that the purchaser’s right to rely on representations made by the seller or the seller’s agent is inseparably connected with the duty of the purchaser to use diligence with respect of representations made to him. In other words, the courts require purchasers to take reasonable steps to protect their own interest and will not allow purchasers to rely on general statements made by sellers or real estate agents. To do otherwise, according to the court, would merely encourage negligence and inattention on the part of purchasers.
The court in Hearn v. Statesville Lodge has enforced the classic “Buyer Beware” doctrine. Under this doctrine, purchasers are not allowed to rely upon “general” statements made by sellers. Without a doubt, this case will be cited often in the future in defense of sellers and real estate agents.


