How To Prove A Tennessee Fraud Claim
In Tennessee, a claim of Fraud 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.
It simply means:
This means that a party intentionally deceived another party for their own benefit.
There are 4 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant intentionally misrepresented a material fact. The defendant knowingly provided false information about something important, which misled the other party and influenced their decision, forming a key part of a fraud claim.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant knowingly provided false information about the product’s effectiveness, claiming it could cure a disease when it had no scientific backing.
* The defendant concealed critical defects in the property during the sale, which they were aware of but chose not to disclose.
* The defendant made exaggerated claims about their experience and qualifications, which were easily verifiable as untrue.
* The defendant created fake testimonials to mislead potential customers about the quality of their services.
* The defendant failed to disclose their financial interest in a competing product while promoting their own, misleading consumers about potential conflicts of interest. - Element 2. The defendant knew the representation was false. The defendant was aware that the information they provided was untrue, meaning they intentionally misled someone to gain an advantage or benefit, which is a key part of proving fraud.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant had prior knowledge of the product’s defects but continued to market it as flawless.
* Internal communications revealed that the defendant was aware of the misrepresentation before making the public statement.
* The defendant received multiple complaints about the product’s performance but chose to ignore them.
* The defendant had previously been warned by employees about the inaccuracies in the marketing materials.
* The defendant’s financial records indicated a motive to misrepresent the product to boost sales despite knowing the truth. - Element 3. The plaintiff suffered an injury due to reasonable reliance on the misrepresentation. The plaintiff was hurt because they trusted false information provided by someone else, believing it to be true, which led them to make decisions that caused their injury.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff reviewed the defendant’s marketing materials, which falsely claimed that the product would significantly improve performance.
* The plaintiff consulted with the defendant about the product’s benefits and was assured of its effectiveness, leading to a purchase decision.
* The plaintiff relied on the defendant’s representations when investing a substantial amount of money in the product.
* The plaintiff experienced a decline in performance after using the product, contrary to the defendant’s claims.
* The plaintiff would not have purchased the product had they known the true nature of its effectiveness. - Element 4. The misrepresentation involved a past or existing fact. The misrepresentation in a fraud claim refers to a false statement about something that has already happened or is currently true, which leads someone to make decisions based on that incorrect information.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant claimed that the property had no prior water damage, which was false and verifiable through inspection records.
* The seller represented that the roof was replaced within the last five years, but documentation shows it was actually replaced over ten years ago.
* The defendant stated that the business had consistently profitable operations, while financial statements revealed significant losses in the previous year.
* The advertisement asserted that the vehicle had never been in an accident, yet a vehicle history report indicated multiple prior collisions.
* The landlord claimed that all appliances were in working order, but several appliances were found to be non-functional upon move-in.
(See Kincaid v. SouthTrust Bank, 221 SW 3d 32 (Tenn. Court of Appeals 2006).)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Fraud, 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 Claim of Fraud.
U.S. Civil Cases Only