Hawaii law only recognizes a duty to disclose to the client. Unless the real estate professional was acting in a dual representative capacity (of both landlord and tenant) then there is no duty to disclose. See Property House Inc. v. Kelley, 715 P.2d 805, 68 Haw. 371 (Haw. 03/13/1986).
However, this doesn't mean that there is no obligation to avoid active concealment of material facts that if known to the tenant would have caused the tenant to not enter into, or materially modify, the contract
. That failure to disclose would be a fraud -- which is what the court is distinguishing -- i.e., there is an agent's duty to affirmatively disclose all material facts, no matter what sort of affect it may have on the client. Whereas the duty to avoid active concealment is owed by every contracting party to the counterparty.
It's somewhat splitting hairs, but it boils down to whether or not the agent knew of some defect and kept silent, as opposed to not being certain of a defect, and simply ignoring the possibility.
Hope this helps.
And, if you need to contact me again, please put my user id on the title line of your question (“ToCustomerrdquo;), and the system will send me an alert. Thanks!