FOR PUBLICATION

Table of Forms

Authoritative Dictionary

Thesaurus

Evidence

Law Students-USL

A Legal and Business Portal-Home
A Legal and Business Portal-Home

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Fraud-Deceit-Elements
(City Solutions v. Clear Channel)

Fraud-Deceit-Elements
(City Solutions v. Clear Channel)

[1] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

CSI, the record demonstrates that it carried its burden of persuading

the jury that Eller committed fraud in representing to

CSI that it would work exclusively with CSI to submit a joint

bid in response to the City’s RFP, and in later terminating its

relationship with CSI and bidding with Adshel. The Supreme

Court of California has recognized “promissory fraud” as a

“subspecies of the action for fraud and deceit.” Lazar v. Superior

Ct., 12 Cal. 4th 631, 638 (1996). “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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). CSI was required to persuade the jury by a preponderance

of the evidence as to each of these elements in

order to prevail on its cause of action for fraud. See Kruse v.

Bank of Am., 202 Cal. App. 3d 38, 60-61 (1988). Moreover,

under California law, CSI was required to persuade the jury

as to the amount of damages it suffered with “reasonable certainty.”

See, e.g., Stott v. Johnston, 36 Cal. 2d 864, 875

(1951).

PDF