What are the elements of fraud in the context of a cross-complaint?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Lee v. Hitejinro Co., B280923 (Cal. App. 2018):
The elements of fraud are: " '(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or "scienter"); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.' " (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) The allegations supporting these elements are set forth in paragraphs 72 through 77 of the cross-complaint.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Does a jury need to be told that the element of offense is not a given, not a required element, and that the omission of that element is a harmless error? (California, United States of America)
What are the elements of fraud under the California Fraud Act? (California, United States of America)
What are the elements of fraud in the context of a tort action for deceit? (California, United States of America)
Does the fact that the alleged fraud may have resulted from conspiracy or intrinsic to extrinsic fraud change the definition of conspiracy to commit an act of fraud? (California, United States of America)
Does a trial court have a duty to give an instruction that the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence to establish any element of the crime including the element of intent? (California, United States of America)
What are the elements of a fraud case? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for fraudulent intent in the context of a promissory fraud claim? (California, United States of America)
Does the statutory elements of conspiracy to commit murder include all of the elements of attempted murder? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts treated the issue of consent in the context of a refund fraud case? (California, United States of America)
Does counsel who fail to respond when given the chance to respond to arguments in an adversarial context deprive the trial court of the opportunity to consider their arguments in a similar context? (California, United States of America)
