How can Roger’s statement about the condition of the pool be classified if it turns out the information was misleading?

When considering the classification of Roger's statement about the condition of the pool as misleading, it's important to understand what constitutes unintentional misrepresentation. This type of misrepresentation occurs when a person provides information that they believe to be true, but it turns out to be false due to a lack of reasonable care or investigation.

In this case, if Roger made a statement about the pool's condition without knowing it was misleading, and he did not exercise the necessary diligence to ensure the information's accuracy, this would classify as unintentional misrepresentation. He may have genuinely believed that the pool was in good condition based on his observations or information he received, but without validating that information, his statement misled others.

On the other hand, intentional misrepresentation would involve him knowingly providing false information, while negligent misrepresentation would imply some level of carelessness in verifying the truth without outright intent to deceive. "No misrepresentation" suggests that the information was accurate, which in this context is not the case as the information was indeed misleading. Understanding these distinctions helps clarify why unintentional misrepresentation applies here.