Fraud, To Defraud

"Legal Lexicon":
FRAUD, TO DEFRAUD - The term 'fraud' is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. 【Fraud may also include an omission or intentional failure to state material facts, knowledge of which would be necessary to make other statements not misleading.】
To make a 'misrepresentation' simply means to state as a fact something which is false or untrue. 【To make a material 'omission' is to omit or withhold the statement of a fact, knowledge of which is necessary to make other statements not misleading.】
Thus, to constitute fraud, a misrepresentation must be false 【or an omission must make other statements misleading】, and it must be 'material' in the sense that it relates to a matter of some importance or significance rather than a minor or trivial detail.
To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation 【or omission】 must also relate to an 'existing fact.' Ordinarily, a promise to do something in the future does not relate to an existing fact and cannot be the basis of a claim for fraud unless the person who made the promise did so without any present intent to perform it or with a positive intent not to perform it. Similarly, a mere expression of opinion does not relate to an existing fact and cannot be the basis of a claim of fraud unless the person stating the opinion has exclusive or superior knowledge of existing facts which are inconsistent with such opinion.
To constitute fraud the misrepresentation 【or omission】 must be made knowingly and intentionally, not as a result of mistake or accident; that is, that the person either knew or should have known of the falsity of the misrepresentation 【or the false effect of the omission】, or that he made the misrepresentation 【or omission】 in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity.
Finally to constitute fraud, the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant intended for the Plaintiff to rely upon the misrepresentation 【and/or omission】; that the Plaintiff did in fact rely upon the misrepresentation 【and/or omission】; and that the Plaintiff suffered injury or damage as a result of the fraud.
In some cases 【depending on the specifics of the case and the law】 when it is shown that a Defendant made a material misrepresentation 【and/or omission】 with the intention that the Plaintiff rely upon it, then, under the law, the Plaintiff may rely upon the truth of the representation, even though its falsity could have been discovered had he made an investigation, unless he knows the representation to be false or its falsity is obvious to him.
In other cases, when it is shown that a Defendant made a material misrepresentation 【and/or omission】 with the intention that the Plaintiff rely upon it, the Plaintiff must prove that his reliance was justified. If, in the exercise of reasonable care for the protection of his own interests, the Plaintiff could have learned the truth of the matter by making a reasonable inquiry or investigation under the circumstances presented, but failed to do so, then it cannot be said that he 'justifiably' relied upon such misrepresentations 【and/or omissions】.
For injury or damage to be the result of fraud, it must be shown that, except for the fraud, the injury or damage would not have occurred.
Go to Fraud, To Defraud2