How To Prove A Texas Fraud Claim
In Texas, a claim of Fraud is defined as:
Fraud is an intentional misrepresentation to deceive another into surrendering money or other items of value. (See also Actionable Fraud).
It simply means:
A party intentionally deceived another party for their own benefit.
There are 4 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant made a material representation that was false. The defendant knowingly provided false information that was important to the situation, which misled the other party and influenced their decisions.
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 represented that the investment opportunity would yield a guaranteed return of 15%, despite knowing the venture was financially unstable.
* The defendant assured the buyer that the property had no structural issues, while a subsequent inspection uncovered significant damage.
* The defendant advertised the service as having a satisfaction guarantee, yet refused to refund customers who were dissatisfied.
* The defendant stated that the vehicle had never been in an accident, but a vehicle history report showed it had been involved in multiple collisions. - Element 2. The defendant knew the representation was false or made it recklessly as a positive assertion without any knowledge of its truth. The defendant either knew that what they said was untrue or made the claim carelessly, without checking if it was true, treating it as a fact.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant made the representation despite having received multiple reports indicating that the information was inaccurate.
* The defendant had previously been warned by colleagues that the claim was misleading, yet chose to repeat it without verification.
* The defendant’s own internal documents contradicted the representation, showing awareness of its falsehood.
* The defendant failed to conduct any due diligence before making the assertion, indicating a reckless disregard for the truth.
* The defendant had a history of making similar false claims, demonstrating a pattern of deceitful behavior. - Element 3. The defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to act upon the representation. The defendant meant to trick the plaintiff into taking action based on false information, showing that they intended for the plaintiff to rely on their misleading statements.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant made a specific promise to the plaintiff, knowing it would lead the plaintiff to take action based on that promise.
* The defendant actively encouraged the plaintiff to rely on the representation by providing detailed information that was misleading.
* The defendant had a history of making similar representations to others, demonstrating a pattern of intent to induce reliance.
* The defendant followed up with the plaintiff after making the representation, reinforcing the expectation that the plaintiff would act on it.
* The defendant was aware that the plaintiff was in a vulnerable position and exploited that vulnerability to induce action. - Element 4. The plaintiff actually and justifiably relied upon the representation and thereby suffered injury. The plaintiff believed what the defendant said and acted on that belief, which led to them experiencing harm or loss as a result.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff reviewed the defendant’s marketing materials, which claimed that the product would significantly improve performance.
* Based on the defendant’s assurances, the plaintiff invested a substantial amount of money in the product, believing it would yield a high return.
* The plaintiff experienced a decline in performance after using the product, contrary to the defendant’s representations.
* The plaintiff sought advice from the defendant before making the purchase, relying on their expertise and assurances.
* The plaintiff incurred additional costs to remedy the issues caused by the product, directly resulting from their reliance on the defendant’s claims.
(See Ernst & Young v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 51 S. W. 3d 573 (Tex. Supreme Court 2001).)
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