Fraud, accompanied by damage to the party defrauded, always gives a right of action to the injured party.
(Orig. Code 1863, § 2900; Code 1868, § 2906; Code 1873, § 2957; Code 1882, § 2957; Civil Code 1895, § 3813; Civil Code 1910, § 4409; Code 1933, § 105-301.)
Cross references.- Equity jurisdiction over fraud, § 23-2-50 et seq.
Law reviews.- For article, "Consumer Protection Against Sellers Misrepresentations," see 20 Mercer L. Rev. 414 (1969). For article discussing ex parte rescission of sales contract for fraud and suit for fraud and deceit, in light of City Dodge, Inc. v. Gardner, 232 Ga. 766, 208 S.E.2d 794 (1974), see 11 Ga. St. B. J. 172 (1975). For comment on Gardner v. Celanese Corp. of America, 88 Ga. App. 642, 76 S.E.2d 817 (1953), see 16 Ga. B. J. 340 (1954). For comment on Whiten v. Orr Constr. Co., 109 Ga. App. 267, 136 S.E.2d 136 (1964), see 1 Ga. St. B. J. 234 (1964). For comment, "Damage Awards and Computer Systems - Trends," see 35 Emory L.J. 255 (1986).
JUDICIAL DECISIONSANALYSIS
Essential elements of action for fraud and deceit are: (1) that the defendant made the representations; (2) that at the time the defendant knew the representations were false; (3) that the defendant made the representations with the intention and purpose of deceiving the plaintiff; (4) that the plaintiff reasonably relied upon such representations; and (5) that the plaintiff sustained the alleged loss and damage as the proximate result of the representations having been made. Brown v. Ragsdale Motor Co., 65 Ga. App. 727, 16 S.E.2d 176 (1941); Cosby v. Asher, 74 Ga. App. 884, 41 S.E.2d 793 (1947); McBurney v. Woodward, 84 Ga. App. 807, 67 S.E.2d 398 (1951); Aderhold v. Zimmer, 86 Ga. App. 204, 71 S.E.2d 270 (1952); Gaultney v. Windham, 99 Ga. App. 800, 109 S.E.2d 914 (1959); Anderson v. R.H. Macy & Co., 101 Ga. App. 894, 115 S.E.2d 430 (1960); McLendon v. Galloway, 216 Ga. 261, 116 S.E.2d 208 (1960); Wiseman Baking Co. v. Parrish Bakeries of Ga., Inc., 103 Ga. App. 61, 118 S.E.2d 190 (1961); Dixie Seed Co. v. Smith, 103 Ga. App. 386, 119 S.E.2d 299 (1961); Vaughan v. Oxenborg, 105 Ga. App. 295, 124 S.E.2d 436 (1962); Blanchard v. West, 115 Ga. App. 814, 156 S.E.2d 164 (1967); D.A.D., Inc. v. Citizens & S. Bank, 227 Ga. 111, 179 S.E.2d 71 (1971); Hannah v. Belger, 436 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1971); Romedy v. Willett Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 136 Ga. App. 67, 220 S.E.2d 74 (1975); Hardy v. Gordon, 146 Ga. App. 656, 247 S.E.2d 166 (1978); Windjammer Assocs. v. Hodge, 153 Ga. App. 758, 266 S.E.2d 540 (1980), overruled on other grounds, 246 Ga. 85, 269 S.E.2d 1 (1980); Tolar Constr. Co. v. GAF Corp., 154 Ga. App. 127, 2 S.E.2d 635 (1980); Eckerd's Columbia, Inc. v. Moore, 155 Ga. App. 4, 270 S.E.2d 249 (1980); DeLong Equip. Co. v. Washington Mills Abrasive Co., 887 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1081, 110 S. Ct. 1813, 108 L. Ed. 2d 943 (1990), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 990 F.2d 1186 (11th Cir. 1993).
Actionable fraud will not result from misrepresentations which are immaterial, not relied upon, or which the plaintiff in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have ascertained to be untrue. Vaughan v. Oxenborg, 105 Ga. App. 295, 124 S.E.2d 436 (1962).
Constructive knowledge is not sufficient basis upon which to predicate action for fraud. Derryberry v. Robinson, 154 Ga. App. 694, 269 S.E.2d 525 (1980).
It is only fraud which results in damage that is actionable. Hinton v. Mack Purchasing Co., 41 Ga. App. 823, 155 S.E. 78 (1930).
By the express language of O.C.G.A. § 51-6-1, only fraud which results in damage is actionable. Pelletier v. Stuart-James Co., 863 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1989).
Issue of value.- A general averment that the value of an item is exceedingly less than the price paid is merely conclusory and does not raise a fact issue as to value sufficient for a fraud claim to survive a summary judgment. Poe v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 1 F. Supp. 2d 1472 (N.D. Ga. 1998).
Falsehood or a lie, without damage, will not entitle the plaintiff to recover; but if there is damage with a lie, there is deceit, and injury to the party injured by the deceit is entitled to redress. Foster v. Sikes, 202 Ga. 122, 42 S.E.2d 441 (1947).
Any misrepresentation intended to deceive and which does deceive is fraud, for which a party is entitled to a remedy at law. Oliver v. O'Kelley, 48 Ga. App. 762, 173 S.E. 232 (1934).
Finding of willful misrepresentation required.
- Court's failure to instruct the jury that it must find a willful misrepresentation before the jury could find the defendant liable for fraud was erroneous, misleading, and harmful, requiring the grant of a new trial. Trailmobile, Inc. v. Barton Envtl., Inc., 167 Ga. App. 1, 306 S.E.2d 1 (1983).
Failure to perform in accordance with promise lacking in mutuality cannot provide basis for actionable fraud. Kinard Realty, Inc. v. Evans, 152 Ga. App. 813, 264 S.E.2d 282 (1979).
Fraud cannot consist in mere speculation about future performance which amounts to no more than puffing. Vaughan v. Oxenborg, 105 Ga. App. 295, 124 S.E.2d 436 (1962).
Action for fraud not permitted if the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence.
- Fraud cannot form the basis of an action or a defense thereto, in the absence of any trust or confidential relationship, if it appears that the person relying on the fraud as a basis for the action or in defense thereto had equal and ample opportunity to prevent the happening of the occurrence, and made it possible through a failure to exercise proper diligence. Anderson v. R.H. Macy & Co., 101 Ga. App. 894, 115 S.E.2d 430 (1960); Lorick v. Na-Churs Plant Food Co., 150 Ga. App. 209, 257 S.E.2d 332 (1979).
Misrepresentation observable by both parties to contract.
- A misrepresentation as to a matter of law amounting only to a misrepresentation as to a legal liability, which induces the making of a contract, does not constitute fraud which would authorize an action for deceit, when the matter is equally open to the observation of both parties, and there is no relation of trust or confidence between them. Salter v. Brown, 56 Ga. App. 792, 193 S.E. 903 (1937).
A petition for fraud and deceit must show that one who relied upon the representations of another used the means available to one, in the exercise of diligence, to discover the truth. One failing to inform oneself, but having equal opportunity of learning the truth, must suffer the consequences of one's neglect. Blanchard v. West, 115 Ga. App. 814, 156 S.E.2d 164 (1967).
A fraud plaintiff must have used due diligence in attempting to establish the truth or falsity of a defendant's assertions. DeLong Equip. Co. v. Washington Mills Abrasive Co., 887 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1081, 110 S. Ct. 1813, 108 L. Ed. 2d 943 (1990), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 990 F.2d 1186 (11th Cir. 1993).
"Due diligence" demands reasonable care.
- The due diligence requirement does not go so far as to require the exhaustion of all available means to ascertain the truth of the representation, but demands only reasonable care, which is a jury question. DeLong Equip. Co. v. Washington Mills Abrasive Co., 887 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1081, 110 S. Ct. 1813, 108 L. Ed. 2d 943 (1990), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 990 F.2d 1186 (11th Cir. 1993).
Repetition after plaintiff's denial.
- When the plaintiff repeatedly confronts the defendant with the apparent falsity of its representations, and the defendant repeatedly confirms its original statement, asserting special knowledge, reliance is justified. DeLong Equip. Co. v. Washington Mills Abrasive Co., 887 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1081, 110 S. Ct. 1813, 108 L. Ed. 2d 943 (1990), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 990 F.2d 1186 (11th Cir. 1993).
Fraud which would relieve a party who can read must be fraud which prevents the party from reading. The exception to this rule is when the perpetrator of the alleged fraud is a fiduciary of the victim of the alleged fraud. Stewart v. Boykin, 165 Ga. App. 868, 303 S.E.2d 50 (1983).
Liability for fraud involves questions of law, as well as fact, and is properly decided only if the jury is instructed as to the applicable legal standards. Jones v. Miles, 656 F.2d 103 (5th Cir. 1981).
It is the province of the jury to pass upon all circumstances of alleged fraud, and to determine whether or not the party defrauded exercised diligence in discovering the falsity of the misrepresentations. Daniel v. Dalton News Co., 48 Ga. App. 772, 173 S.E. 727 (1934).
Questions of fraud, and the truth and materiality of representations made by a defendant, and whether the plaintiff could have protected oneself by the exercise of proper diligence, are matters which usually should be submitted to a jury, and the court will not solve them on demurrer (now motion to dismiss), except in plain and undisputable cases. Blanchard v. West, 115 Ga. App. 814, 156 S.E.2d 164 (1967).
Waiver of action for fraud.- A person who voluntarily enters into a later agreement after full knowledge of all material facts waives one's right to a cause of action for common-law fraud. Jones v. Miles, 656 F.2d 103 (5th Cir. 1981).
Class action.
- If fraud based upon oral misrepresentations, as opposed to written misrepresentations, is the gravamen of the complaint, the matter is not appropriate for class action treatment. This is so because of the necessity for individual proof of detrimental reliance. Stevens v. Thomas, 257 Ga. 645, 361 S.E.2d 800 (1987).
Type of damages permitted in fraud case.
- In the insured party's fraud claim against the insurer alleging a conspiracy to intentionally undervalue automobile property damage claims, the total-loss valuation under the policy's appraisal provision did not moot the fraud claim; damages in the fraud claim were not limited to damage to the vehicle and included, under O.C.G.A. § 51-6-1, damages naturally flowing from the fraud itself. McGowan v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 281 Ga. 169, 637 S.E.2d 27 (2006).
Right to recover even nominal damages.
- When there is fraud or breach of a legal or private duty accompanied by any damage, the law gives a right to recover damages, even only nominal damages, as compensation. Holmes v. Drucker, 201 Ga. App. 687, 411 S.E.2d 728 (1991).
Punitive damages are permitted in Georgia cases involving fraud. Shingleton v. Armor Velvet Corp., 621 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1980).
Fraud, if found, will justify punitive damages. Gower v. Cohn, 643 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1981).
Punitive damages might be awarded in connection with a state securities violation, but only if in accord with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 51-6-1. Jones v. Miles, 656 F.2d 103 (5th Cir. 1981).
Award precluded by notice of appeal.
- Award of damages under O.C.G.A. § 51-6-1 required reversal because a timely notice of appeal was filed which divested the trial court of jurisdiction to make such an award. Hall v. Hidy, 263 Ga. 422, 435 S.E.2d 215 (1993).
Cited in Christian v. Penn, 7 Ga. 434 (1849); Terhune v. Dever, 36 Ga. 648 (1867); Cochran v. Jones, 85 Ga. 678, 11 S.E. 811 (1890); Burpee v. Holmes, 132 Ga. 464, 64 S.E. 486 (1909); Gafford v. Twitty, 154 Ga. 682, 115 S.E. 105 (1922); Hoffman v. Lynch, 23 F.2d 518 (N.D. Ga. 1928); Keiley v. Citizens' Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 173 Ga. 11, 159 S.E. 527 (1931); Equitable Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Brady, 175 Ga. 43, 164 S.E. 674 (1932); Simmons v. May, 53 Ga. App. 454, 186 S.E. 441 (1936); Sikes v. Foster, 74 Ga. App. 350, 39 S.E.2d 585 (1946); Jackson v. Smith, 92 Ga. App. 677, 89 S.E.2d 526 (1955); Allstadt v. Johnson, 97 Ga. App. 584, 103 S.E.2d 683 (1958); Mooney v. Tallant, 397 F. Supp. 680 (N.D. Ga. 1975); McNeal v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 598 F.2d 888 (5th Cir. 1979); Pelletier v. Schultz, 157 Ga. App. 64, 276 S.E.2d 118 (1981); Everson v. Franklin Disct. Co., 248 Ga. 811, 285 S.E.2d 530 (1982); McGaha v. Kwon, 161 Ga. App. 216, 288 S.E.2d 289 (1982); Crosby v. Wenzoski, 164 Ga. App. 266, 296 S.E.2d 162 (1982); Big Ben Agri-Services, Inc. v. Bank of Meigs, 174 Ga. App. 493, 330 S.E.2d 422 (1985); Southern Disct. Co. v. Kirkland, 181 Ga. App. 263, 351 S.E.2d 685 (1986); Reynolds v. Flint River Technical Inst., 223 Ga. App. 240, 477 S.E.2d 393 (1996); Chandler v. MVM Constr., Inc., 232 Ga. App. 385, 501 S.E.2d 533 (1998).
Application to Specific Cases
Actionable fraud for purposes of lex loci delicti.
- Because only fraud which results in damage is actionable, the "last event" necessary to make an actor liable for fraud is the injury, and consequently, for purposes of lex loci delicti, the place of the wrong is where that injury is sustained. IBM v. Kemp, 244 Ga. App. 638, 536 S.E.2d 303 (2000).
Breach of creditor's agreement to extend payments does not give rise to action for fraud.
- Although creditor may have made an agreement, without consideration, to extend the debtor's time of payment, a failure to comply therewith did not give rise to cause of action for breach of contract, neither did it, under the allegations of the petition, make out a cause of action for fraud and deceit. Tallent v. Scarratt, 51 Ga. App. 577, 181 S.E. 141 (1935).
Cutting off equities of note maker creates liability.
- The wrongful transfer of a negotiable note to a bona fide purchaser, thereby cutting off the maker's valid defense, gives rise to a cause of action under this section for the damages resulting therefrom. Jones v. Crawford, 107 Ga. 318, 33 S.E. 51, 45 L.R.A. 95 (1899); Detwiler v. Bainbridge Grocery Co., 119 Ga. 981, 47 S.E. 553 (1904).
Damage from fraudulent sale recouped.
- A vendee, in an action by the vendor for the purchase price of land, may recoup actual damages resulting from a misrepresentation of the vendor of the boundaries of the land. James v. Elliott, 44 Ga. 237 (1871).
Effect of plaintiff's contributory negligence.
- When a prospective purchaser of a quantity of goods represented to the owner of the goods who was offering the goods for sale that one could not afford to pay the market value because there was a processing tax imposed by the United States government on the goods and the seller, relying on the purchaser's representation as to the existence of a processing tax, sold the goods to the purchaser at the value of the tax less, per ton, but the pretended processing tax imposed was in fact void, the purchaser having instituted legal proceedings in court for the purpose of enjoining its collection, and having obtained an injunction enjoining same, the purchaser's misrepresentation of the purchaser's liability for the payment of the processing tax was as to a matter equally open to the observation of the seller and, therefore, constituted no fraud affording ground for a cause of action for deceit. Salter v. Brown, 56 Ga. App. 792, 193 S.E. 903 (1937).
Evidence failed to establish fraud and deceit alleged as the evidence amounted only to promise to pay money in future. Bullard v. Western Waterproofing Co., 63 Ga. App. 547, 11 S.E.2d 713 (1940).
Misrepresentation to assignor of salary that such is owed by employer.
- One who receives a purported assignment of salary to secure an antecedent debt is not damaged merely by false and fraudulent representations by the assignor to the effect that one's employer is indebted to one for such salary. Hinton v. Mack Purchasing Co., 41 Ga. App. 823, 155 S.E. 78 (1930).
Summary judgment for a corporation was proper in fraud action.
- Trial court properly granted summary judgment to a corporation on a limited liability company's fraud claim as: (1) the contract contained an integration clause and other representations could not be used to vary the contract; (2) the contract was more specific than the Georgia Limited Liability Partnership Act, specifically O.C.G.A. § 14-11-305(1), and the contract prevailed; (3) the contract provided that any member could engage in conflict of interest transactions, that the corporation could compete directly with the joint venture, and that the corporation had complete control of the joint venture's business; and (4) the corporation held 51 percent of the membership and could consent to a change in the joint venture's purpose or scope. Alimenta (USA), Inc. v. Oil Seed South, LLC, 276 Ga. App. 62, 622 S.E.2d 363 (2005).
Misrepresentation of bank's solvency.
- Petition serving a recovery by the plaintiffs as depositors against individuals who were officers and directors of the bank, because of the publication of false statements and personal misrepresentations in regard to the bank's solvency, which did not show actual fraud on the part of the defendants, failed to state a cause of action against them for fraud and deceit. Green v. Perryman, 186 Ga. 239, 197 S.E. 880 (1938).
Bank's payment of company's checks when account funds insufficient.- When a car auction contended that a bank's practice of paying a car company's checks when the account had insufficient funds constituted fraud because such payment misled the car auction as to the company's credit worthiness but the evidence showed that the auction relied upon past credit history in extending credit and that it had no knowledge that the bank paid checks when the account had insufficient funds until some checks were dishonored, the bank did not act fraudulently because there was no misrepresentations, no reliance, and no intent to deceive. Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Tennille Banking Co. (In re Smith), 51 Bankr. 904 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1985).
Misrepresentation by contractor as to work required.
- Petition by subcontractor for damages due to increased costs of work performed by virtue of misrepresentations by contractor as to nature of work required was an action for fraud and deceit. Rich's, Inc. v. Kirwan Bros., 97 Ga. App. 58, 102 S.E.2d 648 (1958).
Misrepresentation by director to person purchasing stock concerning financial condition of corporation is actionable. Daniel v. Dalton News Co., 48 Ga. App. 772, 173 S.E. 727 (1934).
Misrepresentation on financial statement in connection with loan.
- In suit against the defendants, for a tort consisting of fraudulent representations made by them in their financial statements, whereby the borrower obtained money from the plaintiff, the plaintiff could waive the right to sue on the note and the contract of guaranty and bring an action for damages on account of alleged fraud and deceit by the defendant, whereby the lender advanced the money to its subsequent injury. Allen v. Hartsfield Co., 52 Ga. App. 549, 183 S.E. 821 (1936).
Misrepresentation of property values.
- As against attack by general demurrer (now motion to dismiss), allegations of fraud and deceit which showed that the defendant deliberately concealed facts within the defendant's knowledge affecting value, as an inducement to sell, which facts the plaintiff sought to discover, are sufficient to support a cause of action. Blanchard v. West, 115 Ga. App. 814, 156 S.E.2d 164 (1967).
Misrepresentation of quality of goods.
- Evidence that within two weeks of purchase of used 1975 Oldsmobile from dealer (contract containing an express disclaimer of all warranties), the engine of the automobile burned up and had to be replaced was sufficient evidence to support verdict for fraud and deceit, with actual and punitive damages. Bob Maddox Dodge, Inc. v. McKie, 155 Ga. App. 263, 270 S.E.2d 690 (1980).
When the purchaser of personal property has been injured by the false and fraudulent representations of the seller as to the subject matter thereof, the purchaser ordinarily has an election whether to rescind the contract, return the article, and sue in tort for fraud and deceit, or whether to affirm the contract, retain the article, and seek damages resulting from the fraudulent misrepresentation. Bob Maddox Dodge, Inc. v. McKie, 155 Ga. App. 263, 270 S.E.2d 690 (1980).
No cause of action for fraud exists in one who buys or accepts security in land while failing to exercise any diligence for one's protection, and asserts that one blindly relied on the representations of the seller as to matters of which one could have informed oneself. Third World, Ltd. No. II v. Brewmasters of Augusta, Inc., 155 Ga. App. 352, 270 S.E.2d 891 (1980).
No cause of action for fraud by subscription contest loser when winner used fraudulent means.
- When two contestants in a contest for soliciting subscriptions to a newspaper, submitted to the newspaper putting on the contest their claims for a prize to be awarded under the rules of the contest, and the judges determined the contest according to the rules by awarding the prize to the contestant who obtained the largest number of votes for obtaining subscriptions to the newspaper, the losing party had no remedy by suit at law against the winning party to whom the prize had been awarded, for any redress arising out of any fraud perpetrated by the winning party in the procurement of the subscriptions whereby the judges of the contest were induced to award the prize erroneously. Harrison v. Jones, 52 Ga. App. 852, 184 S.E. 889 (1936).
Representation that land title is unencumbered.
- After the owner of land represented to the purchaser that there was no encumbrance against the premises sold, thereby inducing the purchaser to purchase the land, and the land was found later to be encumbered, this constituted a fraudulent representation for which relief will be given the purchaser. Oliver v. O'Kelley, 48 Ga. App. 762, 173 S.E. 232 (1934).
In a suit by the seller for the purchase money of land, the defendant purchaser is entitled to plead that the defendant was not put in possession of the premises and that the seller was guilty of false and fraudulent representations as to the existence of liens on the premises and, upon proof of such facts, a verdict in the defendant's favor is authorized. Oliver v. O'Kelley, 48 Ga. App. 762, 173 S.E. 232 (1934).
Representation that title to goods is unencumbered.
- When it is shown that goods were furnished upon the false representation that property was free from any lien or encumbrance, and this was known to be so by the accused when the accused made it, it was not necessary to prove how, or to what extent, the furnishers of the goods were damaged thereby. The encumbrance upon the property was in itself proof of damage. Bolton v. State, 43 Ga. App. 759, 159 S.E. 910 (1931).
Statement of one who has purchased an option, to the seller, that one intends to exercise the option, will give rise to cause of action if the statement is false and fraudulent, is material, and is acted upon by the recipient to the recipient's injury. Floyd v. Morgan, 62 Ga. App. 711, 9 S.E.2d 717 (1940).
Stock subscription induced by fraud.
- As between a stockholder and the corporation, unless special circumstances alter the case, the general rule that contracts obtained by fraud may be avoided by the party defrauded applies to a stock subscription induced by the fraud of the company through the company's authorized agents, and so likewise when only the rights of other shareholders are affected, the company being solvent and a going concern. Daniel v. Dalton News Co., 48 Ga. App. 772, 173 S.E. 727 (1934).
Stock sale induced by fraud.
- When a purchaser seeks damages against a party other than the seller of the security the sale of which gave rise to a federal securities claim, the Georgia statute most resembling a Rule 10b-5 cause of action is the Georgia general fraud statute as found in O.C.G.A. § 51-6-1. In re N. Am. Acceptance Corp. Sec. Cases, 513 F. Supp. 608 (N.D. Ga. 1981).
When contract is rescinded and action is brought for fraud, disclaimer of warranty is no longer binding. Bob Maddox Dodge, Inc. v. McKie, 155 Ga. App. 263, 270 S.E.2d 690 (1980).
Physician's duty to disclose risks.
- Physician was not under an affirmative obligation, either under statute or common law, to disclose the physician's drug use to the physician's patients prior to rendering services, and the physician's failure to make such disclosure could not be the basis for an independent cause of action against the physician. Albany Urology Clinic, P.C. v. Cleveland, 272 Ga. 296, 528 S.E.2d 777 (2000), reversing Cleveland v. Albany Urology Clinic, P.C., 235 Ga. App. 838, 509 S.E.2d 664 (1998).
Holder claims permitted.
- In response to a certified question asking whether Georgia common law recognized fraud claims based on forbearance in the sale of publicly traded securities, the Supreme Court answered that Georgia law permitted holder claims, and the limitations imposed in other jurisdictions were appropriate. Negligent misrepresentation claims, like fraud claims, can be based on forbearance in the sale of publicly traded securities, and the direct communication and specific reliance limitations on fraud claims by "holders" also apply to negligent misrepresentation claims. Holmes v. Grubman, 286 Ga. 636, 691 S.E.2d 196 (2010).
Intentionally false statements from attorney.
- While a client's complaint contained a count for fraud, the client failed to allege any specific facts to state a cause of action for fraud pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-9,51-6-1, and51-6-2(b) because the complaint failed to allege any specific facts indicating that a former attorney intentionally made false statements to the client during the course of the representation of the client. Fortson v. Freeman, 313 Ga. App. 326, 721 S.E.2d 607 (2011).
Whether failure to disclose was breach of fiduciary duty.
- In a dispute between a manager and a member of an LLC over the member's alleged failure to disclose a contractor's financial problems and failure to supervise the contractor in the contractor's site work, issues of fact remained regarding whether the member had a fiduciary duty to inform the manager of the problems. Inland Atl. Old Nat'l Phase I, LLC v. 6425 Old Nat'l, LLC, 329 Ga. App. 671, 766 S.E.2d 86 (2014), overruled on other grounds, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 137 (Ga. 2019).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 37 Am. Jur. 2d, Fraud and Deceit, § 12.
C.J.S.- 37 C.J.S., Fraud, §§ 12 et seq., 20, 25, 102-104, 109 et seq.
ALR.
- Obligee's concealment of facts or evasive answers as fraud against surety, 8 A.L.R. 1485.
May offense of obtaining money or property by false pretenses or confidence game be predicated on obtaining loan or renewal thereof, 24 A.L.R. 397; 52 A.L.R. 1167.
Rights and remedies of one whose funds are fraudulently used in the purchase or improvement of real property, 47 A.L.R. 371; 48 A.L.R. 1269.
Fraud of vendee or buyer inducing vendor or seller to accept less favorable terms as sustaining an action in tort, 52 A.L.R. 1153.
Opportunity of buyer of personal property to ascertain facts as affecting claim of fraud on part of seller in misrepresenting property, 61 A.L.R. 492.
Gift by husband as fraud on wife, 64 A.L.R. 466; 49 A.L.R.2d 521.
Promises and statements as to future events as fraud, 68 A.L.R. 635; 91 A.L.R. 1296; 125 A.L.R. 879.
Cancellation or rescission of contract for vendee's failure to comply therewith as affecting his right in tort against the vendor for the latter's fraud, 74 A.L.R. 169.
Admissibility of evidence of good character of party for truth and honesty on issue of fraud in civil action, 78 A.L.R. 643.
Civil liability of bank officer or director permitting deposit after insolvency of bank, 87 A.L.R. 1402.
Right of action for damages against third person for fraud in inducing marriage, 88 A.L.R. 786.
Action for fraud or deceit predicated upon oral contract within the statute of frauds or the transaction of which the oral contract was a part, 104 A.L.R. 1420.
Dealings between seller and buyer after latter's knowledge of former's fraud as waiver of claim for damages on account of fraud, 106 A.L.R. 172.
Effect of action as an election of remedy or choice of substantive rights in case of fraud in sale of property, 123 A.L.R. 378.
Excessive security for debt as affecting question of fraud upon creditors, 138 A.L.R. 1051.
Condition and measure of damages in tort action for fraud inducing loan, 162 A.L.R. 698.
Location of land as governing venue of action for damages for fraud in sale of real property, 163 A.L.R. 1312.
Pleading avoidance of delay in discovery of fraud in order to toll statute of limitations, 172 A.L.R. 265.
Right with respect to proceeds of life insurance of one whose funds have been wrongfully used to pay premiums, 24 A.L.R.2d 672.
Admissibility, in tort action for fraud, of evidence as to price for which the assertedly defrauded purchaser of property sold it, 31 A.L.R.2d 1064.
Misrepresentation as to third person's present intention as to future act as actionable fraud, 40 A.L.R.2d 971.
Tort liability for damages for misrepresentations as to area of real property sold or exchanged, 54 A.L.R.2d 660.
Gift or other voluntary transfer by husband as fraud on wife, 49 A.L.R.2d 521.
Right of action for fraud, duress, or the like, causing instant plaintiff to release or compromise a cause of action against third person, 58 A.L.R.2d 500.
Right of life insurer to restitution of payments made because of fraud as to death of insured, 59 A.L.R.2d 1107.
Measure of damages recoverable for fraud as to the credit or financial condition of a third person, 72 A.L.R.2d 943.
Liability of one putative spouse to other for wrongfully inducing entry into or cohabitation under illegal, void, or nonexistent marriage, 72 A.L.R.2d 949.
Criminal responsibility for fraud or false pretenses in connection with home repairs or installations, 99 A.L.R.2d 925.
Reasonable expectation of payment as affecting offense under "worthless check" statutes, 9 A.L.R.3d 719.
Employer's misrepresentations as to employee's or agent's future earnings as actionable fraud, 16 A.L.R.3d 1311.
Receiver's personal liability for negligence in failing to care for or maintain property in receivership, 20 A.L.R.3d 967.
Duty of vendor of real estate to give purchaser information as to termite infestation, 22 A.L.R.3d 972.
Criminal liability for unauthorized use of a credit card, 24 A.L.R.3d 986.
Measure of damages for fraudulently inducing employment contract, 24 A.L.R.3d 1388.
Employer's misrepresentation as to prospect, or duration, of employment as actionable fraud, 24 A.L.R.3d 1412.
Actionability of conspiracy to give or to procure false testimony or other evidence, 31 A.L.R.3d 1423.
Insurer's tort liability for acts of adjuster seeking to obtain settlement or release, 39 A.L.R.3d 739.
Workmen's compensation provision as precluding employee's action against employer for fraud, false imprisonment, defamation, or the like, 46 A.L.R.3d 1279.
Consumer class actions based on fraud or misrepresentation, 53 A.L.R.3d 534.
Validity of express statutory grant of power to state to seek, or to court to grant, restitution of fruits of consumer fraud, 59 A.L.R.3d 1222.
Recovery for mental anguish or emotional distress, absent independent physical injury, consequent upon breach of contract in connection with sale of real property, 61 A.L.R.3d 922.
Fraud in connection with franchise or distributorship relationship, 64 A.L.R.3d 6.
Tax preparer's liability to taxpayer in connection with preparation of tax returns, 81 A.L.R.3d 1119.
Liability of estate for tort of executor, administrator, or trustee, 82 A.L.R.3d 892.
Recovery of punitive damages in action by purchasers of real property charging fraud or misrepresentation, 19 A.L.R.4th 801.
Real-estate broker's liability to purchaser for misrepresentation or nondisclosure of physical defects in property sold, 46 A.L.R.4th 546.