Did Randi have a duty to disclose information about the car to Mclane?

Should Randi have disclosed the information about the accident and the paint to Mclane?

a. Randi is guilty of negligent misrepresentation
b. Randi has no duty to volunteer information that is not asked
c. Randi is obligated to inform Mclane of any possible problems that might occur
d. Randi is not liable because he is not a car dealership

Final Answer:

While the notion of 'buyer beware' applies in many circumstances, certain jurisdictions may consider withholding pertinent information a fraudulent misrepresentation, depending on whether the seller purposefully concealed the information and how it impacts the buyer's decision-making. In Randi and Mclane's case, the issue would depend on whether Mclane directly inquired about previous accidents and the laws of their specific jurisdiction.

This case revolves around several legal concepts, but paramount to this is the principle of caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware. Generally, sellers aren't obligated to volunteer information regarding the product unless directly asked. However, deceptive practices can be constituted such as fraudulent misrepresentation, especially if the seller purposefully conceals pertinent information about defects or other serious issues that could affect the buyer's decision. The severity of the deflection and whether it is considered negligent or fraudulent can vary based on jurisdiction and specifics of the case. In this case, it's unclear whether Randi is liable for not telling Mclane about the car's past accident and subsequent poor quality paint job. If Mclane had directly asked if the car had ever been in an accident, and Randi lied, it would certainly be a fraudulent misrepresentation. But if not, this would be a grey area which depends on the law of the country they are in.