Same - Statement Of Intention, Expectation, Or Promises

A representation of fact is a statement that a thing was or is, and does not, therefore, include expressions of intention or expectation, or promises, or other representations that a thing shall be.20 Notwithstanding this, a representation of intention may amount to a fraudulent representation. The law makes a distinction between a promise which the promisor, when he makes it, intends to perform, and one which he intends to break. In the first case he represents truly enough his intention that something shall take place in the future, while in the second case he misrepresents his existing intention. He not merely makes a promise which is ultimately broken, but when he makes it he represents his state of mind to be other than it really it.21 It is therefore, as we have already seen, very generally held that if a man buys goods, not intending at the time to pay for them, he makes a fraudulent representation.22

Same - Misrepresentation Of Law

As a rule, misrepresentation of law does not amount to a fraudulent representation for which an action of deceit will lie, nor make a. contract voidable. A contract, therefore, cannot,-unless there are peculiar circumstances of fraud, or a relation of trust and confidence between the parties,23 be rescinded by one party on the ground that the other falsely represented the legal effect of the contract, or otherwise misrepresented the law.24 As already stated, private right of ownership, although it be the result also of a matter of law, is regarded as matter of fact, and ignorance of foreign laws, which include the laws of a sister state, is regarded as ignorance of fact, and misrepresentation in regard to either is misrepresentation of fact.25

And see post, p. 280. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 94; Cent. Dig. §§ 420-430; "Fraud," Deo. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 11, 13; Cent. Dig. §§ 3, 5, 12, 13.

18 Eichelberger v. Mills Land & Water Co., 9 Cal. App. 628, 100 Pac. 117. See "Vendor and Purchaser," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 34, 113; Cent. Dig. §§ 39, 201.

19 GORDON v. PARMELEE, 2 Allen (Mass.) 212, Throckmorton, Cas. Contracts, 189. See "Vendor and Purchaser," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 34; Cent. Dig. § 39.

20 Dawe v. Morris, 149 Mass. 188, 21 N. E. 313, 4 L. R. A. 158, 14 Am. St. Rep. 404; Burrell's Case, 1 Ch. Div. 552; Knowlton v. Keenan, 146 Mass. 86, 15 N. E. 127, 4 Am. St. Rep. 282; Saunders v. McClintock, 46 Mo. App. 216; Sheldon v. Davidson, 85 Wis. 138, 55 N. W. 161; Lawrence v. Gayetty, 78 Cal. 126, 20 Pac. 382, 12 Am. St. Rep. 29; Haenni v. Bleisch, 146 I11. 262, 34 N. E. 153; Balue v. Taylor, 136 Ind. 368, 36 N. E. 269; Birmingham Warehouse & Elevator Co. v. Land Co., 93 Ala. 549, 9 South. 235; Huber v. Guggenheim (C. C.) 89 Fed. 598. But see Williams v. Kerr, 152 Pa. 560, 25 Atl. 618; Moore v. Cross (Tex. Civ. App.) 26 S. W. 122. Representation that stock sold will pay a certain dividend. Robertson v. Parks, 76 Md. 118,. 24 Atl. 411. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 9!,; Cent. Dig. §§ 420-430.

21 Old Colony Trust Co. v. Traction Co. (C. C.) 89 Fed. 794; Russ Lumber & Mill Co. v. Water Co., 120 Cal. 521, 52 Pac. 995, 65 Am. St. Rep. 186; Southern Loan & Trust Co. v. Gissendaner, 4 Ala. App. 523, 58 South. 737; Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Seidel, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 278, 113 S. W. 945. Contra: Miller v. Sutliff, 241 I11. 521, 89 N. E. 651, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 735. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 94; Cent. Dig. §§ 420-430.

22 Ante, p. 274.