Issa wanted to buy a house in which he could live with his parents and three sisters. Jarrah,

the real estate agent he hired, showed him a house owned by Wilson. Jarrah said that the

size of the house was $2,100$ square feet $(195$ m$2)$; the MLS listing he prepared said that the

size was $2,0002,500$ square feet $(198232$ m$2).$ Issa viewed the house a second time,

when he and his family were allowed to inspect the entire house. During this viewing,

Wilson told Issa that the house size was about $2,000$ square feet $(195$ m$2).$ Jarrah admitted

that he was negligent in failing to measure the size of the house.

Issa made an offer to purchase that was accepted. He then received an appraisal required

in connection with his mortgage application. The appraisal indicated that the size of the

house was $1,450$ square feet $(135$ m$2).$ Issa immediately decided not to complete the

purchase. He sued, asking that the purchase contract be rescinded and that his $$50,000$

deposit be returned.

The trial judge ordered rescission and return of the deposit. Jarrah appealed, arguing that

when a purchaser inspects a property, their reliance on a misrepresentation as to the size

of the property is displaced. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the

trial judge that Jarrah$$s misrepresentation concerning the size of the house was material to

Issa$$s decision to purchase. What four reasons did the Court of Appeal give for its

decision?