How To Prove A California Intentional Misrepresentation Claim

 

How To Prove A California Intentional Misrepresentation Claim

 

In California, a claim of Intentional Misrepresentation is defined as:

An intentional misrepresentation to deceive another into surrendering money or other items of value. Fraud consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury. See also Fraud.

It simply means:

A party intentionally deceives another party for their own benefit.

There are 7 elements of the claim:

  • Element 1. The defendant represented to the plaintiff that a fact was true. The defendant told the plaintiff something that they claimed was true, which the plaintiff relied on, believing it to be accurate.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant stated during a meeting that the product had a 100% satisfaction guarantee, which influenced the plaintiff’s decision to purchase.
    * In an email, the defendant claimed that the property was free of any liens or encumbrances, leading the plaintiff to believe it was a safe investment.
    * The defendant provided a written report asserting that the vehicle had never been in an accident, which the plaintiff relied upon when making the purchase.
    * During a phone call, the defendant assured the plaintiff that the service would be completed within two weeks, which was a critical factor in the plaintiff’s decision.
    * The defendant advertised the software as being compatible with all major operating systems, which the plaintiff relied on when making the purchase decision.

  • Element 2. The defendant’s representation was false. The defendant made a statement that was not true, which they knew was false or should have known was false, leading the other party to rely on that incorrect information.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant claimed that the product was made from 100% organic materials, but independent testing revealed it contained synthetic additives.
    * The defendant assured the buyer that the property had no history of flooding, yet public records showed multiple flood incidents in the past five years.
    * The defendant represented that the vehicle had never been in an accident, but a vehicle history report documented significant collision damage.
    * The defendant stated that the investment would yield a guaranteed return of 15%, despite having no basis or evidence to support such a claim.
    * The defendant advertised the service as “fully compliant with all regulations,” while it was later discovered that it violated several local laws.

  • Element 3. The defendant knew that the representation was false when he or she made it, or he or she made the representation recklessly and without regard for its truth. The defendant either knew the statement was untrue when they made it or made the statement carelessly, not caring whether it was true or false.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant had previously been informed by a reliable source that the information he provided was inaccurate.
    * The defendant conducted no research or verification before making the representation, despite having access to the necessary information.
    * The defendant had a history of making similar false representations in prior transactions without any regard for their truthfulness.
    * The defendant’s own documents contradicted the representation made, indicating awareness of its falsity.
    * Witnesses testified that the defendant laughed off concerns about the accuracy of the representation at the time it was made.

  • Element 4. The defendant intended that plaintiff rely on the representation. The defendant meant for the plaintiff to trust the false information they provided, knowing that the plaintiff would depend on it when making decisions.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant made the representation during a formal meeting, emphasizing its importance to the plaintiff’s decision-making process.
    * The defendant followed up with the plaintiff multiple times to ensure they understood and believed the representation.
    * The defendant provided written documentation that reiterated the representation, indicating a desire for the plaintiff to rely on it.
    * The defendant was aware that the plaintiff was considering a significant investment based on the representation made.
    * The defendant had a history of making similar representations to other parties, which led to their reliance on those statements.

  • Element 5. The plaintiff reasonably relied on the defendant’s representation. The plaintiff trusted what the defendant said or showed them, believing it to be true, and this trust was reasonable based on the situation, which is an important part of proving that the defendant intentionally misled them.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant assured the plaintiff that the product was safe and effective for use, leading the plaintiff to purchase it.
    * The plaintiff had no prior knowledge or experience with the product, relying solely on the defendant’s expertise and claims.
    * The defendant provided written documentation that highlighted the benefits of the product, which the plaintiff reviewed before making a decision.
    * The plaintiff had previously trusted the defendant’s recommendations, establishing a pattern of reliance on their representations.
    * The defendant’s marketing materials prominently featured testimonials from satisfied customers, which influenced the plaintiff’s decision to buy the product.

  • Element 6. The plaintiff was harmed. The plaintiff was harmed means that the person who is suing suffered some kind of damage or loss, like financial trouble or emotional distress, because they believed the false information provided by the other party.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff relied on the defendant’s false statements when making a significant financial investment.
    * As a result of the defendant’s misrepresentation, the plaintiff incurred substantial financial losses.
    * The plaintiff experienced emotional distress due to the misleading information provided by the defendant.
    * The plaintiff’s business suffered a decline in reputation after the misrepresentation was revealed.
    * The plaintiff was forced to spend additional resources to rectify the consequences of the defendant’s false claims.

  • Element 7. The plaintiff’s reliance on the defendant’s representation was a substantial factor in causing his or her harm. The plaintiff must show that they trusted what the defendant said, and this trust played a major role in leading to the harm or loss they experienced.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff based their decision to invest in the defendant’s business solely on the defendant’s claims of high profitability.
    * The plaintiff incurred significant financial losses after relying on the defendant’s false statements about the product’s safety.
    * The plaintiff turned down alternative opportunities because they trusted the defendant’s assurances of guaranteed returns.
    * The plaintiff’s emotional distress was directly linked to the defendant’s misleading representations about the project’s success.
    * The plaintiff can demonstrate that they would not have proceeded with the transaction if they had known the truth.

(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 1900.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Intentional Misrepresentation, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to effectively navigate your case.

Prove Your CA Intentional Misrepresentation Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only

Just a moment please.