Also known as: fraud · mistake · fraud/mistake
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Circumstances involving intentional deception or an erroneous belief that trigger exceptions to general legal rules or require particularized treatment. Such circumstances permit constructive breaking in burglary when used to gain entry, prevent merger of contract into deed in property transfers, support relation back of amendments when a party is misidentified, allow admission of other acts to show absence of mistake, justify lawyer withdrawal when a client persists in using services for fraud, and support piercing the corporate veil when adherence to the corporate form would sanction fraud.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Finn Fletcher tells the homeowner he is a city inspector needing to check the furnace. The homeowner opens the door and allows him inside. Once inside at night, Finn steals jewelry from a locked safe. The entry satisfies the breaking element of burglary because it was accomplished by fraud.
Fiona Foster buys a house from Fulton Shipping. The contract promises the seller will repair the roof before closing, but the deed contains no such promise. After closing Fiona discovers the roof was never repaired. She may still sue for breach because the promise was not merged into the deed due to fraud in the inducement.
Felicia Fuentes sues a company under the wrong corporate name. Within the Rule 4(m) period the correct entity learns of the suit and knows it would have been named but for the mistake in identity. The amendment adding the proper defendant relates back to the original filing date.
Frank Fisher is charged with knowingly receiving stolen goods. The prosecution offers evidence that he previously received similar goods from the same supplier under circumstances that made their stolen nature obvious. The evidence is admissible to prove knowledge and absence of mistake.
Felicity French learns her client intends to use her services to submit false documents to a bank. After discussing the limits of permissible assistance, the client persists. Felicity must withdraw because continued representation would further a fraud.
Francois Fortier forms Ferrum Metals with minimal capital and commingles personal and corporate funds. He uses the corporation to incur debts he never intends to pay. Creditors may pierce the veil because adherence to the corporate form would sanction fraud.
Merger does not bar claims based on fraud or mutual mistake. A buyer may still enforce promises or seek relief when the seller engaged in fraud that induced the transaction even if the promise is absent from the deed.
Supporting sources
A party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of mind may be alleged generally under Rule 9(b).
…was not; he prepared the list of names by which the clerk filled up commissions and believed Ramsay's name was omitted by mistake. He believed none of the commissions for justices of the peace signed by Mr. Adams were recorded; after being prepared they were carried to Mr. Adams for signature and then back to the…
…of its corporate laws, in assuring the solvency and fair management of its domestic corporations, and in protecting from fraud those shareholders who placed their faith in that state-created institution. [^maj-5]: In fact, it is quite plausible that the Delaware Legislature never felt the need to assert direct…
…Cf. W. Gellhorn & C. Byse, Administrative Law—Cases and Comments 860-863 (6th ed. 1974). A further safeguard against mistake is the policy of allowing the disability recipient's representative full access to all information relied upon by the state agency. In addition, prior to the cutoff of benefits the agency…
…he attempted to make a connection between the equipment in one of the new substations and an outside line through which, by a mistake
…by Illegal Searches—A Comment on People vs. Cahan, 43 Calif. L. Rev. 565 (1955). 2. Burns, Mapp v. Ohio: An All-American
Supporting sources
Evidence of other crimes or acts is admissible to prove absence of mistake or lack of accident. The evidence must be relevant to a non-propensity purpose and survive Rule 403 balancing.
Supporting sources
A lawyer must withdraw when the client seeks to use or persists in using the lawyer's services to commit or further a crime or fraud after the lawyer has discussed the limitations on assistance.
Supporting sources
A plaintiff must show unity of interest and ownership so that separate personalities no longer exist and that adherence to the corporate fiction would sanction fraud or promote injustice.
Supporting sources