Harris owns a small retail building, historically leased to a tenant who operated a convenience store at the property. During the time he has owned the building he has never had any trouble with the roof and has never known it to leak. He decides to sell the building, placing a "for sale" sign in the parking lot in front of the building. One prospective buyer, Danielle, walks through the building with Harris and asks him some questions, including the question "Does the roof leak?" Harris answers, "No, the roof does not leak, not even a little bit." Satisfied with Harris' answer, Danielle agrees to purchase the building from Harris at his asking price, and they memorialize their agreement in a signed writing. Prior to the closing, she learns that the roof does leak, but that the leaking is visible only from inside the attic during a heavy rainfall. Can Danielle use the doctrine of misrepresentation to avoid the contract?

Group of answer choices

Yes, but only if Danielle relied on Harris' statement in deciding to buy the building.

No, the misrepresentation defense requires that the party claiming misrepresentation as a defense exercise due care, and since Danielle did not inspect the roof personally, she cannot claim the defense.

No, the misrepresentation defense requires that a party knowingly make false statements, and Harris did not know the roof leaked.

Yes, but only if Harris should have known that the roof leaked when he made the statement.