FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS. 



145 



the jury have found that the intention of the defendant was 

 not fraudulent (w). 



If a person knowingly utters a falsehood with intent to 

 deprive another party of a benefit and acquire it to him- 

 self (x), or with intent to induce another party to do an act 

 which results in his loss, and damage naturally flows to the 

 other party from this belief, an action lies (y). 



But an action cannot be supported for telling a bare 

 naked lie ; and that is defined to be, saying a thing which 

 is false, knowing or not knowing it to be so, and without 

 any design to injure, cheat, or deceive another person. 

 Every deceit comprehends a lie ; but a deceit is more than 

 a lie, on account of the view with which it is practised, its 

 being coupled with some dealing, and the injury which it 

 is calculated to occasion and does occasion to another 

 person (z). 



It is not necessary for the person defrauded to give direct 

 proof that he was influenced by the misrepresentation. 

 And upon this point Lord Denman, C.J., said: "If a 

 fraudulent representation is published, it must be presumed 

 that a party who acts according to such a representation 

 was influenced by it" («). But this appears to be rather 

 an inference for the Court than a question for the jury, for 

 in the case of Feret v. Hill (b), though the jury found that 

 the plaintifi' had obtained a lease by fraud and misrepresen- 

 tation, yet the Court entered a verdict for the plaintifl' 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 Courts have 

 endeavoured on the one hand to repress dishonesty, and 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 



Falsehood 

 must be 

 followed by 

 damage. 



A naked lie 

 no cause of 

 action. 



Presumption 

 that person 

 defrauded was 

 influenced by 

 the misrepre- 

 sentation. 



Due caution 

 must always 

 be observed. 



(w) See per Piatt, B., Murray v. 

 Mann, 2 Ex. 539 ; Milne y. Mar- 

 wood, 15 C. B. 778; Broom's 

 Maxims, 4th ed. 758, 759 ; Folwill 

 V. Walter, 3 B. & Ad. 114. As to 

 the expression "legal fraud," see 

 WeirY. Bell, 3 Ex. D. 238, 343, per 

 BramweU, L.J. : Berry t. Feeh, 

 15 App. Gas. 337, 365, 372, per 

 Lord Herschell. 



(x) Barky v. Walford, 9 Q. B. 

 197. 



(2^) Longmead v. Solliday, 6 Ex. 



O. 



766 ; and see Levy v. Zangridge, 4 

 M. &W. 337. 



(z) Per Buller, J., Fasley v. Free- 

 man, 3 T. E. 56 ; 1 E. E. 634; and 

 Mummery y. Faul, 1 C. B. 322. 



[a) Watson Y. Earl of Charlmont, 

 12 Q. B. 862. 



(*) Feret t. Sill, 23 L. J., C. P. 

 185. But see the comments upon 

 this case in Canham v. Barry, 24 

 L. J., C. P. 100 ; and in R. v. 

 Saddlers Co., per Blackburn, J., 32 

 L. J., Q. B. 343. 



