A Fraud Lawsuit Under California Law by Michael Abney: Lsat Prep Courses

A Fraud Lawsuit Under California Law by Michael Abney
The victim reasonably relied upon the promise.

The various ways a victim can be defrauded are as limitless as the bounds of human ingenuity. A
claim for negligent misrepresentation is generally the same as a claim for intentional
misrepresentation, except the victim must only prove the defendant did not have "a reasonable
basis" to believe its statement of fact was true (as opposed to proving the defendant knew its
statement was false). Sales talk, or "puffing" ("This is the best location in the county!"), is generally
not actionable. The victim's reliance on the defendant's promise was a substantial factor in causing
the victim's harm.
2. The victim must also prove that the defendant did not intend to perform the promise at the time
the promise was made. The victim must have actually relied upon the statement to change his or her
position (e.g., the victim would not have purchased the house if he or she knew the truth).
b. False Promise. 2d 409.
b. There must be measurable damages that were caused by the fraud. Intention to defraud. Also, the
victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. The defendant had a duty to disclose.
Also, the measure of damages is generally more liberal under fraud and other "tort" theories,
allowing victims a more complete recovery. A claim of fraud may arise if a defendant entered into a
contract and made promises that it never intended to perform. The defendant made a promise.
f. The defendant did not perform the promise.
h. The promise was important to the transaction. But not every false statement is fraudulent. Even
an unsophisticated victim, however, "may not put faith in representations which are preposterous, or
which are shown by facts within his observation to be so patently and obviously false that he must
have closed his eyes to avoid discovery of the truth." Seeger v. For instance, if the defendant made
the false statement to a third person with the expectation that the statement would be repeated to
the victim, the victim may have a valid claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.
It is important to understand that a broken promise, alone, is not a sufficient basis for a fraud claim.
More than a mere broken promise is required. For example, sellers of residential property in
California generally are required to make written disclosures about the condition of the house.
a. In practice, it is usually difficult to tell the difference between a broken promise lsat prep courses
and a promise made without an intention to perform. The false statement need not be the only
reason the victim changed his or her position, but it must be at least part of the reason. The
sophistication of the victim will play a role in determining whether his or her reliance on the
statement was reasonable; e.g., a sophisticated real estate investor's reliance on a representation
about the qualities of a house may not be reasonable while an unsophisticated buyer's reliance may
be. Punitive damages are not available for negligent misrepresentations.
c. A claim for fraud may also arise if the defendant concealed or failed to disclose a material fact
during a transaction, causing damage to the victim. An intentionally or recklessly false statement of
fact. Courts generally look for circumstantial evidence to support a false promise claim (as opposed
to a broken promise claim), such as the defendant broke its promise immediately after making it.
g. Intentional Misrepresentation. Negligent Misrepresentation. Probably the most common type of
fraud is a false statement. Also, a statement need not be made directly to the victim. Reasonable
reliance upon the false statement. Odell (1941) 18 Cal. But under California law, wrongful actions
are generally characterized as civil "fraud" only under one of the following legal theories:
This article constitutes general information only and should not be relied upon as legal advice.
d. The elements of a false promise claim are:
Fraud Lawsuits lsat class in California. If there is a duty, it generally arises in one of four different
circumstances: (i) The defendant is in a "fiduciary relationship" (such as being a partner) with the
victim; or (ii) The defendant took steps to hide important information from the victim (as opposed to
simply failing to tell the victim); or (iii) The defendant disclosed some information to the victim, but
the disclosed information is misleading unless more information is given; or (iv) The defendant is
aware of key information and knows the victim is unlikely to discover that information. The
defendant intended the victim to rely upon the promise.
c. Resulting in damages. There is not always a duty to disclose facts during a transaction. The
defendant failed to disclose or concealed look at this website a material fact with an intent to
defraud the victim.
4. Concealment. In addition, California laws may create a duty to disclose in certain transactions.
The elements of a claim for fraudulent concealment are:
d. The victim sustained damages as a result of the concealment.
c. If the defendant's false statement was both honestly made and based upon reasonable grounds,
however, there is no claim. 3. The elements of a claim for intentional misrepresentation are:
a. It is not enough that the victim was told a lie (e.g., "A famous movie star once slept in this house");
the victim must also be able to prove some type of damage resulted from the lie.
a. If a representation of fact was intentionally false and a material part of the transaction (e.g., "this
house does not have flooding problems"), it is likely the false promise was made with the intention to
defraud the victim.
e. At the time he or she made the promise, the defendant did not intend to perform it.
1. If the victim knew or should have known the statement was false, the victim did not reasonably
rely. While punitive damages and emotional distress damages are generally not available for breach
of contract in California, the victim still should be able to recover his or her monetary damages.
d. However, if the defendant claims to be an expert or there are other reasons to expect that the
victim would rely upon the defendant's opinion as a statement of "fact," an opinion may be treated
by the court as a statement of fact. The victim must have been unaware of the fact and would not
have acted as he or she did if he or she knew of the fact.
b. But even if a wrongful action does not fall under the definition of "fraud," it still may lead to a
valid legal claim. Not every false statement is a false statement of "fact." Statements of opinion
generally are not actionable. The victim was harmed as a result of defendant not carrying out his or
her promise.
Characterization of a claim as fraud has many advantages to a victim; primarily, the victim may be
able to recover punitive damages in addition to actual damages. For instance, a broken promise while not https://www.thelawyer.com/ necessarily fraudulently - may still constitute a valid breach of
contract claim

A Fraud Lawsuit Under California Law by Michael Abney: Lsat Prep Courses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Fraud Lawsuit Under California Law by Michael Abney: Lsat Prep Courses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Fraud Lawsuit Under California Law by Michael Abney: Lsat Prep Courses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Fraud Lawsuit Under California Law by Michael Abney

The victim reasonably relied upon the promise.

You might also like