How To Prove A Florida Fraudulent Misrepresentation Claim
In Florida, a claim of Fraudulent Misrepresentation is defined as:
Fraudulent Misrepresentation is a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it.
It simply means:
When one party purposely deceives the other with the intention of persuading them to sign a contract.
There are 5 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant made a misrepresentation concerning a material fact. The defendant falsely stated something important that influenced the other party’s decision, leading them to believe something untrue that they relied on.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant stated that the property was free of any structural issues, despite knowing it had significant foundation problems.
* The defendant provided false documentation indicating that the vehicle had never been in an accident, while it had been involved in multiple collisions.
* The defendant claimed that the investment opportunity would yield guaranteed returns, despite having no basis for such assurances.
* The defendant assured the buyer that the product was FDA-approved, when in fact it had not undergone any regulatory review.
* The defendant represented that the business was profitable, while concealing financial records that showed consistent losses. - Element 2. The defendant knew the misrepresentation was false. The defendant was aware that the information they provided was untrue, meaning they intentionally lied or misled someone to gain an advantage or benefit, which is a key part of proving a fraudulent misrepresentation claim.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant had prior knowledge of the true condition of the product but chose to conceal it during the sale.
* The defendant received multiple complaints about the product’s quality but continued to advertise it as flawless.
* The defendant was involved in previous transactions where similar misrepresentations were made, indicating a pattern of deceit.
* The defendant’s internal communications revealed awareness of the misleading nature of the claims made to customers.
* The defendant had access to expert reports contradicting the claims made in their advertisements but ignored them. - Element 3. The defendant intended that the misrepresentation induce the plaintiff to act on it. The defendant meant for the false information to convince the plaintiff to take a specific action, showing that they intended for their lie to influence the plaintiff’s decisions.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant made a false statement about the product’s effectiveness, knowing that the plaintiff relied on this information to make a purchase.
* The defendant repeatedly emphasized the benefits of the product during their sales pitch, clearly intending to persuade the plaintiff to buy it.
* The defendant had previously engaged in similar deceptive practices, demonstrating a pattern of behavior aimed at inducing reliance from potential buyers.
* The defendant provided misleading documentation that exaggerated the product’s capabilities, directly targeting the plaintiff’s decision-making process.
* The defendant was aware of the plaintiff’s specific needs and tailored their misrepresentation to exploit those needs for personal gain. - Element 4. The plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation to their detriment. The plaintiff trusted the false information provided by the defendant and made decisions based on it, which ultimately led to their financial loss or harm.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff invested a significant amount of money in the business based on the defendant’s false claims about its profitability.
* The plaintiff declined a more lucrative opportunity because they believed the defendant’s misrepresentation indicated a secure financial future.
* The plaintiff incurred substantial expenses to develop a product that was based on the defendant’s misleading information.
* The plaintiff suffered financial losses directly linked to the reliance on the defendant’s fraudulent statements regarding market demand.
* The plaintiff’s decision to enter into a contract was solely based on the defendant’s assurances, which were later proven to be false. - Element 5. The plaintiff’s injury was caused by reliance on the representation. The plaintiff must show that they suffered harm because they trusted a false statement made by the defendant, meaning their injury directly resulted from believing that misleading information.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff reviewed the defendant’s advertisement, which claimed the product would significantly improve performance.
* The plaintiff purchased the product solely based on the defendant’s assurances of its effectiveness.
* The plaintiff experienced a decline in performance after using the product, contrary to the defendant’s claims.
* The plaintiff would not have bought the product if they had known the true nature of its effectiveness.
* The plaintiff relied on the defendant’s representation when making their purchasing decision, leading to their injury.
(See Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102 (Fla. Supreme Court 2010).)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Fraudulent 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 necessary to effectively navigate your legal journey.
Prove Your FL Fraudulent Misrepresentation Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only