acting on plaintiffs’ behalf, did not rely on the accuracy of the representations, or that the truth of the statements in the certificate was immaterial to the lawyer’s actions. If the lawyer had known the statements were inaccurate, and for purposes of this summary-judgment motion we assume that they were, a factfinder could most certainly infer that the lawyer would not have advised the plaintiffs to proceed without taking further steps to ensure that the wastewater system was properly constructed. By inferring as a matter of law that the truth of the statements in the certificate was of no consequence to plaintiffs’ lawyer — who had a fiduciary duty to them in connection with this transaction — the majority has failed to draw reasonable inferences in 40, 44 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003) (<HOLDING>). Rather, plaintiffs claim direct reliance on
holding that plaintiffs did not allege sufficiently direct reliance where allegation was that defendants misrepresented quality of their wasteremoval systems in their permit application to state agency that agency relying on the misrepresentation issued the permits and that in turn the plaintiffs relied on the fact that the agency had issued the permits to conclude that their wastedisposal system was functioning properly holding that court can affirm administrative order only on grounds on which agency relied and noting that the orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained holding that the state police is a state agency holding that the power of any administrative agency to reconsider its final decision exists only where the statutory provisions creating the agency indicate a legislative intent to permit the agency to carry into effect such power holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding