A buyer asks a licensee if a seller's house has had a new roof in the last 10 years. The licensee answers in the affirmative without asking his employer, the seller. If the buyer purchases the 40-year-old house and discovers that the house has never had a new roof, could the licensee be subject to charges of misrepresentation

While it is advisable for licensees to direct buyers to sellers for accurate information, the primary issue is the licensee's failure to verify facts before providing an answer. Simply referring the buyer to the seller does not mitigate the licensee's responsibility to provide truthful and verified information in the first place.

This option incorrectly shifts the responsibility solely onto the seller. The licensee is still accountable for ensuring the accuracy of the information they provide, regardless of whether the seller gave them the correct details. The lack of communication from the seller does not absolve the licensee from potential misrepresentation.

The absence of conspiracy does not excuse the licensee's obligation to provide accurate information. Misrepresentation can occur regardless of intent, and the licensee's failure to verify the roof's condition is sufficient ground for charges, independent of any conspiracy with the seller.