Latest technology version for wireless music, all software, synthesis and effects for Mac OS X 10.10 . 912-13, and refused to renew it even though the new loan was not due to mature until May 7, 1986. Plaintiffs further argued that the defendants failed to disclose information concerning the quality and value of the plaintiffs' equipment.
The defendants contended that any defects in the equipment in the 1980 loan were cured when the final payments were made in July 1984. Plaintiffs' failure to make such a final payment obviated any right they might have had to damages for that failure.
The trial court held that the defendants did not owe a duty to disclose any information concerning the plaintiffs' equipment. Such a duty may arise where there is an employment-type relationship where the employee has a "special relationship" with a third party who can reasonably be expected to have relevant information. Cramer v. Plastics Mfg. Co., 324 N.W.2d 479 (N.D.1982). Plaintiffs have not established a relationship of "trust and confidence" with the defendants, nor can it be said that a confidential relationship existed between the plaintiffs and the defendants' agent, Paul Morton. Porter v. North American Rockwell Corporation, 335 N.W.2d 838 (N.D.1983).
Plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants committed fraud by failing to disclose that the equipment was of "questionable quality." First, the plaintiffs had no right to rely on any representations that might have been made by the defendants in the loan application. The plaintiffs executed the loan application containing the following language: "Lender can require or allow inspections of the property as it deems necessary or advisable."
In addition, this court has held that there is no duty to disclose all material facts in a credit transaction. There is only an obligation to disclose material facts about which one has knowledge or information. Cramer v. Plastics Mfg. Co., supra. The plaintiffs, through their own experience and observation, were aware of the questionable quality of their equipment. Since the defendants were not obligated to disclose any defects which were known to the plaintiffs, they could not be held liable for failing to do so.
Because the plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the question of fraud, the summary judgment dismissing the action against the defendants is affirmed.