Fraud in the Inducement + Fraud in the Factum

Brien Roche Law > Fraud in the Inducement + Fraud in the Factum

Falling victim to fraud can make you feel helpless. You don’t have to fight against fraudulent acts committed against you alone.  Whether fraud in the inducement (contract fraud) or another type of fraud occurs, you can turn to Brien Roche Law to represent you and help you get the justice you deserve.

Learn if your fraud case is worth pursuing

  • Different types of fraud
  • Elements of a fraud claim
  • Standard of proof for damages
  • The defense of fault in fraud claims

Types of fraud

Fraud in the inducement

Fraud in the inducement occurs when a person tricks you into entering into an agreement or contract by making fraudulent statements and representations. The contract may put you at a disadvantage. Under different circumstances you probably would not have signed the contract.

Example of fraud in the inducement:

A case of fraud in the inducement would be if you hired a company to fix a leak in your home’s plumbing system and you’re told they’ve been doing plumbing over a decade only to find out it’s their first plumbing job and the damage occurs due to their lack of experience. In this case, you were tricked into signing an agreement based on fraudulent statements.

Fraud in the factum

Fraud in the factum may occur when a legal document differs from the one intended to be used by the person who signs it. This is often seen in situations where there is a forged contract or a change of contract terms without the other party’s knowledge.

Example of fraud in the factum:

For instance, if you hire a company to do plumbing work on your home and sign a contract for a set amount of money and the company then changes the contract after the fact to show that you will pay more for the job without your knowledge or agreement, that is fraud in the factum. 

Elements of a Fraud in the Inducement Claim

Before pursuing a fraud claim, you want to ensure that fraud took place. These are the elements of a fraud claim that could make the contract voidable and should be present before moving forward with a case. 

False statement

This may come in the form of a lie or in by hiding or not disclosing facts.  

Past or present material fact

The second part of a fraud claim is that the false statement must be of a past or present material fact. It cannot be a future fact.


The third part of fraud is that the statement must be made with the intent to deceive. The goal, in most cases, being the signing of a contract.  

It is the intent that sets an actual fraud claim apart from a constructive fraud claim. With the latter, the statement may be innocent or negligent. It may be based either upon an overt statement or a failure to disclose facts where there is a duty to disclose. 

Justifiable reliance

The fourth part of a fraud claim is that of justifiable reliance. You must prove that your reliance on the statement was justifiable under the conditions. If your reliance was due to careless indifference or being naive, that might constitute a hole in your case.

Detriment or damage

The final part of a fraud claim is damage or injury.  Normally the injury involves some financial or dollar loss.

The types of damages/relief allowed where fraud has been proven by clear and convincing evidence are:

  • Delay damages
  • Damages for embarrassment, humiliation, and mental anguish
  • In cases dealing with a property, the losses are the difference between the property’s value at the time the contract was made and the value the property would have possessed if the statement had been correct.
  • Loss of potential future earnings
  • Attorney’s fees
  • Punitive damages
  • Rescission

Standard of Proof For Damages

Although fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, the amount of damage need only be confirmed by the greater weight of the evidence.

The Defense of Fault In Fraud Claims

Equal fault

If the party claiming to have been cheated was, in fact, part of the scheme of fraud, then a claim cannot be proven. The parties are not in pari delicto if they don’t have the same level of knowledge or involvement.


In Waller v. Eanes’ Adm’r, 156 Va. 389, 396 (1931) the Court referenced two situations that can be a defense in fraud claims. One is where there is an imposition, oppression, duress, threats, undue influence, or taking advantage of the weakness of the other party. A second instance where such inequality may exist is where, even though the contract is illegal, the position of one of the parties is less illegal and blame-worthy than that of the other.

Secure representation for your fraud case

Brien Roche is a skilled tort attorney with vast experience in fraud claims who has been serving the Northern Virginia and D.C. area for over 40 years. When fraud occurs, you want the legal advice of an expert in fraudulent inducement and other forms of fraud. We can provide that.

Schedule a free consultation

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Fraud in the Inducement + Fraud in the Factum

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation