FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS. 151 



But an actiou cannot be supported for telling a bare A naked lie 

 Naked Lie ; and that is defined to be, sajing a thing ^o p'^^^^^e of 

 which is false, knowing or not kno^^dng it to be so, and ^°*^°^" 

 without any design to injiu-e, cheat, or deceive another 

 person. Every Deceit comprehends a Lie ; but a Deceit 

 is more than a Lie, on accoimt of the view with which 

 it is practised, its being coupled A\dth some dealing, and 

 the injmy which it is calculated to occasion and does occa- 

 sion to another person (s) . 



It it not necessary for the person defrauded to give Presumption 

 direct proof that he was influenced by the Misrepresenta- *^^^* person 

 tion. And upon this point Lord Denman, 0. J., said, " If influenced by 

 a fraudulent representation is published, it must be pre- the Misrepre- 

 sumed that a party who acts according to such a represen- sentation. 

 tation was influenced byit"(r/). But this appears to be 

 rather an inference for the Coui't than a question for the 

 Jmy, for in the case of Feret v. Hillib), though the Jmy 

 found that the plaintiff had obtained a lease by fraud and 

 misrepresentation, yet the Court entered a verdict for the 

 plaintiff on the ground that the Fraud was collateral, and 

 that it did not go to the root of the contract. 



In considering the question of Fraud, the Comets have Due caution 

 endeavom^ed on the one hand to repress dishonesty, and must always 

 on the other they have required that before relieving a 

 party from a contract on the ground of Fraud, it should 

 be made to appear that in entering into such contract he 

 exercised a due degree of caution, because Vigilantibus non 

 dormientibus snccurruntjura (c). 



Therefore, to constitute Fraud there must be an assertion Not Fraud to 

 of something false within the knowledge of the person suppress what 

 asserting it, or the suppression of that which is true, and Duty to 

 which it was his dutij to communicate. So if a person piu^- communicate, 

 chases an article wliich is to be manufactm-ed for him, and 

 the manufactiu-er delivers it with a patent defect wliich 

 may render it worthless, if the purchaser has had an oppor- 

 tunity of inspecting it, but has neglected to do so, the 

 manufacturer is not guilty of Fraud in not pointing out 

 the defect {d). 



(z) TerBuiler, J., Pa.il('>/ V. Free- L. J., C. P. 100; and in S. v. 



man, 3 T. R. 56 ; and Mionmery v. Saddler.'i' Co., per Blackburn, J., 



Paul, 1 C. B. 322. 32 L. J., Q. B. 343. 



(ff) Watson V. Earl of Charlmont, (c) See Chit. Contr. 10th ed. 



12 Q. B. 862. 63U ; Shrcusburyv. Blount, 2 Scott, 



{b) Feret v. Hill, 23 L. J., C. P. N. K. 588. 

 185. But see the comments upon (r/) Horsfallv. Thomas, 1 H. & C. 



this case in Caiiham v. Barry, 24 90 ; Smith v. Hughes, L. R., 



