What is the legal classification of Anthony's statement about Lot 25's ability to support an on-site septic system?

The legal classification of Anthony's statement about Lot 25's ability to support an on-site septic system as negligent misrepresentation is justified because it implies that Anthony may have provided information without exercising the necessary level of care. In negligent misrepresentation, a party makes a false statement about a material fact, believing it to be true, but without employing adequate diligence to ensure its accuracy.

In this case, if Anthony genuinely believed that Lot 25 could support a septic system but failed to verify this information, he could be held liable for any damages incurred by relying on that statement. The critical aspect here is the lack of due diligence or reasonable investigation into the claim, leading to the inaccurate assertion about the property's suitability for an on-site septic system.

Understanding why this is not classified as fraudulent misrepresentation or intentional misrepresentation clarifies the distinction: fraudulent misrepresentation involves knowingly providing false information with the intent to deceive, whereas negligent misrepresentation does not include intent to mislead but rather reflects carelessness in confirming the truth of a statement before sharing it. Truthful representation, on the other hand, would indicate that the statement made was accurate and based on verified information, which is not applicable in this context if the information proved to be false.