What is the test for fraudulent intent in the context of a promissory fraud claim?

" 'The elements of fraud, which give rise to the tort action for deceit, 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.' " [Citations.] [] 'Promissory fraud' is a subspecies of the action for fraud and deceit. A promise to do something necessarily implies the intention to perform; hence, where a promise is made without such intention, there is an implied misrepresentation of fact that may be actionable fraud." (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.)

Here, however, plaintiffs have produced evidence of a statement that the credit sequence would be fixed, and the failure to fix it, but nothing else: most patently, no evidence of fraudulent intent as opposed to negligent failure to correct a mistake. As Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 18 tells us, " 'something more than nonperformance is required to prove the defendant's intent not to perform his promise.' . . . [I]f plaintiff adduces no further evidence of fraudulent intent than proof of

Page 20