Please help me with this Discuss the case problem:

Sippy was thinking of buying Christich's house. He noticed watermarks on the ceiling, but the agent showing the house stated that the roof had been repaired and was in good condition. Sippy was not told that the roof still leaked and that the repairs had not been able to stop the leaking. Sippy bought the house. Some time later heavy rains caused water to leak into the house, and Sippy claimed that Christich was liable for damages. What theory would he rely on? Was Sippy successful on his claim? ( Sippy v. Christich, 609 P2d 204 (Kan App).