holding that an allegation of fraud must allege: (1) that the defendant made a material representation, (2) that the representation was false, (3) that when the defendant made the representation, it was known to be false, or was made recklessly, without any knowledge of its truth and was made as a positive assertion, (If) that the defendant made the representation with the intention that it should be acted on by the plaintiff, (5) that the plaintiff acted in reliance on it, and (6) that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result
How later courts described this case
- holding that an allegation of fraud must allege: (1) that the defendant made a material representation, (2) that the representation was false, (3) that when the defendant made the representation, it was known to be false, or was made recklessly, without any knowledge of its truth and was made as a positive assertion, (If) that the defendant made the representation with the intention that it should be acted on by the plaintiff, (5) that the plaintiff acted in reliance on it, and (6) that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result
- holding that a letter dated three years after a future promise was made constituted “evidence too remote in time to indicate that when the [defendants’] agents made the promise they had no intention of fulfilling it”
- observing that this exception exists but finding that “the record is bereft of any such facts” that would allow application of the , exception and further observing that the excep: tion was recognized in a case involving a fiduciary relationship and there was none involved there
- involving a statement to a franchisee outside the terms of a contract that it would be the sole franchise for trucks in a specific region of Michigan
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*340 Williams, J.
(concurring). I concur with my Brother Justice Lindemer. I agree with the circuit court that fraud may be predicated on broken future promises. However, in this case the circuit court relied exclusively on a letter allegedly evidencing fraud which was admitted into evidence for purposes other than showing defendant’s agents had no intention of fulfilling their promises. Absent this evidence, I agree that defendant in this case made no material misrepresentation to plaintiff.