A purchaser of an apartment claimed that the seller hid from her the condition of the plumbing in the bathroom that was later discovered to be rusted and required a complete replacement including replacement of flooring and bath in the bathroom.
The Court held that a purchaser may raise a claim of non-conformity if the discrepancy arises from facts that the seller knew or should have known about at the entry into the contract and did not disclose them to the purchaser. "Should have known" means that a reasonable person under the circumstances would have known about the facts that establish the discrepancy. The purchaser was told, before the apartment was purchased, about the wetness but it was not proven that the seller knew about the cause for the wetness and the duty of disclosure should not be expanded beyond the disclosure of a problem to disclosure of the cause thereof.