Issue 4. Contributory negligence.
LDS asserts that it, like Wagner, bought without knowl-
edge of latent defects. LDS asserts that Wagner's unreason-
able failure to investigate constituted contributory
negligence.
In analyzing this issue, we note that the District
Court only allowed Wagner recovery for latent defects and
denied recovery for obvious defects. In effect, the court
found Wagner accountable for the defects a reasonable buyer
would have noticed. With that distinction, the court proper-
ly addressed Wagner's contributory conduct in the
transaction.
In conclusion, the District Court balanced the respon-
sibilities of seller and buyer in the sale. The court care-
fully apportioned the burden of the defects between the
parties. The court's decision was well reasoned and accom-
plished a just result. We hold that the District Court's
decision was proper and fully supported by the evidence in
the record.
Affirmed.
We concur: