Skip to main content

Deceit in torts

 Deceit in Torts


While the exact definitions and requirements for confirmation vary by jurisdiction, the essential elements of fraud as a tort are, for the most part, the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of a significant certainty whereby the casualty is intended to rely on, and in fact does rely on, the person in question's mischief.

The tort of deception is defined as "intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an existing truth with knowledge of it, as well as the manufacture of disinformation by one person to another in order to profit from the hurt or damage suffered by the other person."

"Maliciously stealing or gaining money or other items through deception methods," according to the definition of fraud. Sections 421 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act define the term "fraud."


The Basics of Fraud or Deceit

The following factors must be present in order to show that a person has committed fraud or deception.

  • The defendant made a false statement or representation.

  • The defendant must have been aware of the statement's falsity or had reason to think it was false.

  • The defendant made the statement with the intent of deceiving the plaintiff.

  • As a result of the misleading statement, the plaintiff must have experienced harm.


False representation or statement of fact(s)


There must be false assertions of truth to show that the defendant is responsible for fraud. A statement may be made by words or by behaviour to constitute a deception.

In the case of R. v. Barnard, a buyer who pretended to be a member of the university by donning the university cap and gown to get credit was held guilty for fraud.

A individual impersonating someone else took the driving test in the case of Idrees v. Director of Public Prosecutions. This was ruled by the court to be fraud because of the deceptive representation.

Silence is all there is

We now know that a false statement or representation is required to hold the defendant accountable for fraud. However, there are also instances when simply being silent about certain facts does not constitute fraud.


Example: If A (seller) sells his sick cow, he does not have to notify B (buyer) about it. Fraud will not be committed if the cow's flaws are not disclosed.

In the matter of Sri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University, the candidate Sri Krishna failed to state that he was unable to write the university's LL.B test due to a lack of attendance. Furthermore, the institution did not conduct a thorough assessment of the paperwork filled out by the candidates. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that Sri Krishna had committed no fraud.

Conclusion

The key aspect of fraud or deception is that the defendant must make a false statement and the plaintiff must suffer the consequences. Fraud and deception are more difficult and specialised torts that need proof of specific unlawful conduct in order to get an acceptable remedy.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree