Fraud

===== Civil fraud =====

Although elements may vary by jurisdiction and the specific allegations made by a plaintiff who files a lawsuit that alleged fraud, typical elements of a fraud case in the United States are that:
# Somebody [[Misrepresentation|misrepresents]] a [[material fact]] in order to obtain action or forbearance by another person
# The other person relies upon the misrepresentation
# The other person suffers injury as a result of the act or forbearance taken in reliance upon the misrepresentation

To establish a civil claim of fraud, most jurisdictions in the United States require that each element of a fraud claim be pleaded with particularity and be proved by a [[preponderance of the evidence]],<ref>See, e.g., {{cite web|title=Halpert v. Rosenthal, 267 A. 2d 730 (R.I. 1970)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5527501886831013047|website=Google Scholar|access-date=6 September 2017}}</ref> meaning that it is more likely than not that the fraud occurred. Some jurisdictions impose a higher evidentiary standard, such as Washington State's requirement that the elements of fraud be proved with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence (very probable evidence),<ref>{{cite web|title=WPI 160.02 Fraud—Burden of Proof|url=https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2cd1eacde10d11dab058a118868d70a9?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)|website=Washington Pattern Jury Instructions - Civil|publisher=West|access-date=24 May 2017|archive-date=6 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170806221312/https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2cd1eacde10d11dab058a118868d70a9?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)|url-status=live}}</ref> or Pennsylvania's requirement that common law fraud be proved by clear and convincing evidence.<ref>{{cite web|title=Boehm v. Riversource Life Insurance Co., 2015 PA Super 120, 117 A.3d 308 (Pa. Super. 2015)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17142924722317996914|website=Google Scholar|access-date=24 May 2017}}</ref>

The measure of damages in fraud cases is normally computed using one of two rules:<ref>{{cite news|last1=Chang|first1=Stanley Y.|title=The CPA Journal Online|url=http://archives.cpajournal.com/old/15410303.htm|access-date=6 September 2017|date=April 1994|archive-date=7 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170907032921/http://archives.cpajournal.com/old/15410303.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>
* The "benefit of bargain" rule, which allows for recovery of damages in the amount of the difference between the value of the property had it been as represented and its actual value;
* Out-of-pocket loss, which allows for the recovery of damages in the amount of the difference between the value of what was given and the value of what was received.
[[Special damages]] may be allowed if shown to have been [[Proximate cause|proximately caused]] by defendant's fraud and the damage amounts are proved with [[Asset specificity|specificity]].

Some jurisdictions may permit a plaintiff in a fraud case to seek [[Punitive damages|punitive]] or exemplary damages.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Koerner|first1=Theodore G.|title=Contracts: Damages: Punitive Damages Awarded for Breach Accompanied by Fraudulent Act|journal=Michigan Law Journal|date=January 1958|volume=56|issue=3|pages=448–450|jstor=1286082|doi=10.2307/1286082|url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol56/iss3/11|access-date=2 January 2021|archive-date=22 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122231931/https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol56/iss3/11/|url-status=live}}</ref>