Translate this into plain english please

What is the name of your state? South Carolina

Fraud and misrepresentation

Representation must concern existing fact

To be actionable, the representation must be a statement or a set of actions which concerns an existing fact. Statements of opinion, predictions of future events, and broken promises do not amount to fraud. Statements of law, except where one deliberately takes advantage of the ignorance of others are also not examples of fraud.

Thank you for your help.

To be actionable, the representation must be a statement or a set of actions which concerns an existing fact.
*Actions that show,state etc. something that is known to be false as true.


Statements of law, except where one deliberately takes advantage of the ignorance of others are also not examples of fraud.
*Someone quoting law that is false or true is not fraud unless the person receiving the information is ignorant and beeing taken advantage of (I.E You have to pay your parking tickets to me its the law).

*shrug* The above is only a opinion and should not be taken as facts

Esther Williams said:

What is the name of your state? South Carolina

Fraud and misrepresentation

Representation must concern existing fact

To be actionable, the representation must be a statement or a set of actions which concerns an existing fact. Statements of opinion, predictions of future events, and broken promises do not amount to fraud. Statements of law, except where one deliberately takes advantage of the ignorance of others are also not examples of fraud.

Thank you for your help.

Click to expand...

If you would care to elaborate on your circumstances and where your statement came from , we might be able to put this in perspective , and give you advice on your situation .

In other words Hearsay statements , and quotes of law ( either real or unreal ) , are NOT actionable .

I have 9 points I have to prove in order to claim fraud or misrepresentation.

1. a representation
2. its falsity
3. its materiality
4. either knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of its truth or falsity
5. intent that the representation be acted upon
6. the hearer's ignorance of its falsity
7. the hearer's reliance of its truth
8. the hearer's right to rely thereon
9. the hearer's consequent and proximate injury

I need to understand what each point is that I have to make clear. I do not understand the first one.

Example: The Seller indeed sold me the defective whicket
or The Seller was representing the defective whicket
or The Seller was the owner of the defective whicket and offered it as sound

I just need these points put into plain language. Most of them are pretty clear but I am not sure what the first one is defining.

Thank you!

edited to change no. 7 to 8 and add the missing no. 7. Too many distractions!

And what did your professor tell you during the time you should have been taking notes?

1. (Seller) "I have a wicket that conforms to competition standards".
2. The wicket does not conform to competition standards.
3. You want a wicket, but it must conform to competition standards.
4. The seller knows it is non-conforming or fails to determine what competition standards are before making the representation.
5. The seller knows or reasonably believes that you wish to purchase a conforming wicket and wants to sell you his (he's not just bragging he has one and you don't).
6. You don't know a wicket from a bowling pin (and there isn't a reasonably expeditious way that you can independently learn).
7. The seller holds himself out as a purveyor of competiton wickets.
9. (What happened to "8"?) You pay 4 times the price of a competiton wicket for a bowling pin.

No, I didn't think it was the best example either, but it's the one you chose.

dcatz said:

1. (Seller) "I have a wicket that conforms to competition standards".
2. The wicket does not conform to competition standards.
3. You want a wicket, but it must conform to competition standards.
4. The seller knows it is non-conforming or fails to determine what competition standards are before making the representation.
5. The seller knows or reasonably believes that you wish to purchase a conforming wicket and wants to sell you his (he's not just bragging he has one and you don't).
6. You don't know a wicket from a bowling pin (and there isn't a reasonably expeditious way that you can independently learn).
7. The seller holds himself out as a purveyor of competiton wickets.
9. (What happened to "8"?) You pay 4 times the price of a competiton wicket for a bowling pin.

No, I didn't think it was the best example either, but it's the one you chose.

Click to expand...

A representation is a person saying that what they are selling is what they say it is?

I think you did a good job. I am trying to assemble this case as a layperson. An attorney in an advisory only position gave me this list of what I needed to prove. I am having a hard time understanding some of the terminology. That's all, I am not a student who is lazy. Actually, I am a crash course student of real life attempting to do my 'homework'!

Thank you!!

A representation is a statement or act which prompts, initiates, causes, "gets the ball rolling" (?) for the transaction that you're attempting to characterize as fraud.

It's the inducement that prompts you to deal with this particular person for that particular purpose.

As far as "reliance" and "right to rely" - you did or didn't do something based on the representation and a reasonable person would have done the same thing under similar circumstances. If I offer to sell you oceanfront property in Arizona, is it reasonable to think that I have it to sell and to buy it from me?

If it's still unclear, I suggest explaining to the attorney assisting you exactly how the whole thing got started.

dcatz said:

A representation is a statement or act which prompts, initiates, causes, "gets the ball rolling" (?) for the transaction that you're attempting to characterize as fraud.

It's the inducement that prompts you to deal with this particular person for that particular purpose.

As far as "reliance" and "right to rely" - you did or didn't do something based on the representation and a reasonable person would have done the same thing under similar circumstances. If I offer to sell you oceanfront property in Arizona, is it reasonable to think that I have it to sell and to buy it from me?

If it's still unclear, I suggest explaining to the attorney assisting you exactly how the whole thing got started.

Click to expand...

Excellent!

"Mrs. X presented herself as capable, willing, and able to help me purchase a competition quality, regulation compliant whicket.

This is what I needed to understand this portion of the requirement. Pretty simple, but written to confound.

Thank you very much!