The Janss case is also distinguishable. In Janss, the tenants had a written unrecorded lease containing the right of first refusal for the purchase of property they were leasing. During the term of the lease, the lessors sold the property to a purchaser without granting tenants the opportunity to buy the property. The purchaser had knowledge that lessees were in possession under a written lease. And there was evidence that two years before the sale one of the lessees told the purchaser that lessees had an “option,” and the purchaser asked nothing about the op*707tion. The court found that the purchasers had a duty to investigate the terms of the written lease and that there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that such investigation would have revealed the “right of first refusal.” Janss, 863 S.W.2d at 650. The facts in the instant case differ significantly from Janss. Here the lease was oral, not written as in Janss. And here the tenant made no statements or representations to the purchasers that he claimed any interest in the fill dirt, driveways or drain tiles. In contrast, the lessees in Janss told the purchaser they had an “option,” and purchaser asked nothing about the option. And in the present case, the purchasers did make reasonable inquiry of the landowner as to the terms of the oral lease, and such inquiry failed to disclose. any claim of tenant to the fill dirt, drain tiles, and driveways.