Zamani

MEMORANDUM **

Because the facts are familiar to the parties involved, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

1. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Carneses 1 on the claim for negligent misrepresentation. The Zamanis have failed to demonstrate that the Carneses made a “positive assertion” that there was no asbestos in the building. See Wilson v. Century 21 Great W. Realty, 15 CalApp. 4th 298, 306, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 779 (1993). “An ‘implied’ assertion or representation is not enough.” Id.

In Wilson , the California Court of Appeal squarely held that when a seller checks the “no” box on a real estate disclosure form when answering “are you aware” questions, the seller has not made a positive assertion about the actual existence of the condition. Id. at 306-07, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 779 . The fact that Gene Carnes answered “UNK” and “N/A,” as well as “no,” in various places on the disclosure form does not lead to a different conclusion than that in Wilson .

2. We also affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Zamanis point to the provision of the purchase agreement that states that “Buyer…