1. Why did the court determine that the statements made by Powell were material?
2. Should the Secchis have contacted the prior tenant to verify Powell’s statements?
3. If the Secchis had contacted the prior tenant and found out that a prior problem existed, would that have affected the outcome of this case? Why or why not?
4. Since the court found that fraud existed, what remedies and damages are the Secchis entitled to?

Jane and Francesco Secchi negotiated a lease for space for purposes of opening Italian Cowboy restaurant. The negotiations took place through the property manager, Powell, who gave the Secchis various assurances that the leased space was practically new, was in perfect condition, and had no defects. Based on these representations, Secchi entered into a lease agreement with Prudential (the landlord) for the space and commenced renovations. During this initial period, the Secchi’s learned that the previous tenant in the space had complained to Powell about a noxious odor that made the space unfit for use. Powell denied that the previous tenant had complained and gave further assurances to the Secchi’s that there had never been a problem with the property. Eventually, the Secchis terminated the lease and sued their landlord and property manager for fraudulent misrepresentation.