Sale agreements have a large, all-capital letter “mandatory statement” in the boilerplate. The “PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE WITHIN A FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT…” language is all drawn from ORS 93.040 and essentially warns the buyer that they need to look into the zoning to see what the property can be used for before buying it. ORS 93.040(5) then goes on to state that failure to include those items will not support a legal action, “unless the person acquiring or agreeing to acquire fee title to the real property would not have executed or accepted the instrument but for the absence in the instrument of the statement .” [i.e., you can’t sue over the potential uses and zoning issues unless it was objectively relevant to your purchasing the property, but wouldn’t have bought it if someone had reminded you to look into zoning]. Multiple sellers over the years have attempted to argue that the inclusion of the mandatory statements protects them from any claims of misrepresentation about the available uses of the property, but courts have largely found that compliance with ORS 93.040 does not stop a buyer’s recovery against that seller who misrepresents the land’s available uses. The courts have found that the Buyer is always expected to check into zoning requirements, and the addition of ORS 93.040’s mandatory statement puts the Buyer on notice of that fact, but if the seller actually lies about the property’s zoning, they will still be responsible for that lie.