Assume, for this question only, the following: During the negotiations Juan guaranteed Sarita that the business had turned a profit in each of the past 5 years. Actually, it lost money in each of those years, although Juan did not know that. When Juan made the statement about the business's profitability, however, Sarita was conferring with her attorney and did not hear it. Her friend Harry, who was observing the negotiations, heard Juan's statement. Before long, when Sarita realizes what a bad deal she's made, she laments the fact to Harry. When Harry inquires how a business that had been profitable under Juan was suddenly losing money, Sarita is confused. They finally realize that Harry heard Juan's misstatement about the business's profitability and Sarita did not. Even so, Sarita is thrilled. With Harry as her key witness, she seeks to rescind the sale agreement claiming innocent misrepresentation. Which of the following is true?
A. Rescission, because Juan intended to defraud Sarita.
B. No rescission, because Juan's claims of the business's profitability would not have been material to Sarita if she had heard them.
C. No rescission, because Juan lacked sufficient knowledge of the false nature of his statement and did not intend to trick Sarita.
D. Rescission, because Juan's claims of the business's profitability would have been material to Sarita if she had heard them. E. No rescission, because Sarita did not actually rely on Juan's false statement about the business's profitability.

Though Juan was unaware that the statement was false at the time the contract was signed, the remedy is recession since no damage has been sustained by the other party. The false statement borders on negligent misrepresentation because Juan was supposed to be aware of the company's profitability by investigating the material fact. While it is not clear if reliance was placed on the statement when the contract was signed, the fact remains that there was a negligent misrepresentation.