COMM 341: C/A Tort of Fraud

COMM 341 > COMM 341: Civil Victim > COMM 341: C/A Tort of Fraud

Prima Facie Case

By clear and covincing evidence (ONLY time this exists in civil)

1. Mis representation of material fact
- Material: matters to case
2. Scienter KNOW THIS
- Subjective rule
- Knowledge of falsity
- Intent to deceive
  - Specific intent: VERY hard to prove
3. Reasonable reliance by the plantiff
- Objective rule
- Would a reasonable person rely on the information under these circumstances?
4. Injury to the plantiff
- Can be personal or financial
5. Causation of injury
- Did the misreprensation lead to the injury?

AKA Caveat Emptor I (or Buyer beware)
- Misreprensentation is an act, a nondisclosure is a non-act.
  - Therefore, nondisclosure is NOT a misreprensentation of fact UNLESS there is a legal duty to disclose
  - See COMM 341: Legal duty to disclose
- Therefore You can NOT sue for Tort of Fraud under nondisclosure

Breaking a promise is NOT a misrepresentation of fact, therefore you can NOT sue for the tort of fraud
- A fact is necessairly about the past or present, however a promise must be about the FUTURE. Therefore the future can not be the past or present so a promise broken can not be a factual misrepresentation
- UNLESS the promise was made with the intent to break it when it was made. This is because when you are promising one thing and saying the opposite, then I'm misrepresentating the fact of what I am actually thinking

When an accountant or financial advisor is being sued for professor work the level of fault is lowered from:
- Intent to
- Recklessness
- Negligence
- No fault

Sceinter is now reclessness instead of intent.

This is NOT a special circumstance