Bateman v. Steed, 2014 SKPC 81 (CanLII)

Bateman purchased the Steeds' home, but abandoned it six months after taking possession. She asked for the return of the deposit she had paid because of misrepresentations made by the Steeds and their realtor, Swarz. Bateman claimed that there were windows that didn't open, sagging floors, a leaking roof, and mould. The Property Condition Disclosure Statement indicated that the Steeds were unaware of any roof leaks or moisture or water problems. This was not true and the Court held that it was negligent misrepresentation of material facts.

Swartz represented both the Steeds and Bateman. The Limited Dual Agency Acknowledgement Form required Swarz to "disclose to the Buyer all material defects about the physical condition of the property known to her." She advised Bateman to have a home inspection, but told her that the roof did not leak and did not mention the presence of water stains.

question-

If Swarz was aware of the leaking roof and moisture problems, should she be held liable for some or all of the damages suffered by Bateman? Should Bateman bear some of her losses because if contributory negligence, since she did not view the house or have it inspected prior to taking possession?