As affecting the validity of the contract, fraud in the inducement renders the contract voidable, not void.1 Such contract may be avoided by the defrauded party if he so wishes,2 but until it is avoided it is binding,3 and it may be ratified.4

Ohio. Linerode v. Rasmueseil, 63 O. 8. 545, 59 N. E. 220.

Oklahoma. Silverwood v. Carpenter (Okla.), 152 Ac. 381.

Oregon. Zobrist v. Estes, 65 Or. 573, 133 Ac. 644.

Pennsylvania. Curtis v. Buzard, 254 Pa. St. 61, 98 Atl. 777.

Washington. Hunt v. Allison, 77 Wash. 58, 137 Ac. 322; Bunck v. Mc-Aulay, 84 Wash. 473, 147 Ac. 33.

West Virginia. Averill v. Boyer, 76 W. Va. 642, 87 S. E. 259.

Wisconsin. Welch v. Dunning, 163 Wis. 535, 158 N. W. 323.

Contra, that the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the article and the contract price, thus depriving the vendee of the benefit of his bargain. George v. Hesse, 100 Tex. 44, 123 Am. St. Rep. 772, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 804, 93 S. W. 107.

11 Vivian v. Allen, 9 Colo. App. 147, 47 Ac. 844; George v. Hesse, 100 Tex. 44, 123 Am. St. Rep. 772, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 804, 93 S. W. 107; Potter v. Lumber Co., 105 Wis. 25, 80 N. W. 88, 81 N. W. 118.

12 See Sec. 359.

1 United States. Gillespie v. Piles, 178 Fed. 886, 102 C. C. A. 120, 44 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1.

California. Davis v. Bulter, 154 CaL 623, 98 Ac. 1047.

Colorado. Zang v. Adams, 23 Colo. 408, 58 Am. St. Rep. 249, 48 Ac. 509.

Idaho. Breshears v. Callender, 23 Idaho 348, 131 Ac. 15.

Illinois. Union, etc., Co. v. Mallory, 157 111. 554, 48 Am. St. Rep. 341, 41 N. E. 888.

Indiana. South Bend & Mishawaka Gas Co. v. Jensen, 182 Ind. 557, 105 N. E. 774.

Iowa. Kearney, etc., Co. v. Ry Co., 97 la. 719, 59 Am. St. Rep. 434, 66 N. W. 1059; Richards v. School Township, 132 la. 612, 109 N. W. 1093; Blake v. Osmundson, 178 la. 121, 159 N. W. 766.

Kentucky. Smith v. Hornback, 14 Ky. (4 Litt.) 232, 14 Am. Dec. 122.

Missouri. Och v. Ry., 130 Mo. 27, 36 L. R. A. 442, 31 S. W. 962.

Nebraska. Linton v. Sheldon, 98 Neb. 834, 154 N. W. 724.

New Jersey. Elmer v. Loper, 66 N. J. L. 50, 48 Atl. 550.

New York. Butler v. Prentiss. 158 N. Y. 49, 52 N. E. 652; Smith v. Ryan, 191 N. Y. 452, 123 Am. St. Rep. 609, 84 N. E. 402.

Oklahoma. Wingate v. Render, - Okla. - , 160 Pac.614.

It has been said in some jurisdictions that a contract induced by fraud is "of no more binding efficacy * * * than if it had no existence or were a piece of waste paper,"5 which was a case of fraud as to the contents of a written instrument, or "mere paper and ink, without the slightest substance of legal efficacy."6 If the courts were not discussing fraud as to the contents of the instrument, the language which is used must probably not be taken literally. A contract of employment obtained by fraudulent representation as to the age of a minor employe has been treated as a nullity, and the minor has been held to be a mere trespasser, for the purpose of relieving the employer from liability for negligence.7

In some cases a contract procured by fraud upon a public corporation is said to be void and not voidable. Thus where A, an agent of a corporation selling maps, promised to pay B, a member of a board of education, a sum of money to compensate him for time lost by him in attending a board meeting, and at such meeting maps were purchased from such corporation, B's vote being necessary to carry such resolution, the contract of purchase was held "void," even though no intention on A's part existed to influence B's action.8 In cases of this sort, however, the contract is void because the public officers are incompetent to act. Fraud is material only as creating such incompetency.

Texas. Perry v. Bassett, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 288, 41 S. W. 523.

West Virginia. Coffman v. Viquesney, 76 W. Va. 84, 84 S. E. 1069.

Wisconsin. Clothing Co. v. Hulbert, 98 Wis. 183, 73 N. W. 784.

2 United States. In re Hunter-Rand Co., 241 Fed. 175.

Iowa. McCord v. Mitchell, - la. - , 165 N. W. 453; Dilenbeck v. Davis, 172 N. W. 184.

Massachusetts. Scott v. Bevilacqua, 226 Mass. 554, 116 N. E. 663.

New Mexico. Morstad v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., - N. M. - , 170 Ac. 886.

New York. Ettlinger v. National Surety Co., 221 N. Y. 467,117 N. E. 945.

North Carolina. Wilson v. Lewis, 170 N. Car. 47, 80 S. E. 804.

North Dakota. Gilmore v. Western Electric Co., 172 N. W. 111.

Oregon. Multnomah County v.

Standard American Dredging Co., - Or. - , 180 Ac. 508.

Utah. Swanson v. Sims, - Utah - , 170 Ac. 774.

3 Lowery v. Mutual Loan Society, - Ala. - , 79 So. 389; Jones v. Rhoades, 167 la. 562, 149 N. W. 637; Gross v. Bibo, 19 N. M. 495, 145 Ac. 480.

4 See Sec. 354 et seq.

5 J. A. Fay & Egan Co. v. Independent Lumber Co., 178 Ala. 166, 59 So. 470 [citing Burroughs v. Pacific Guano Co., 81 Ala. 255, 1 So. 212].

6 Williams v. Moore-Gaunt Co., 3 Ga. App. 756, 60 S. E. 372 [citing, among other cases, Barrie v. Miller, 104 Ga. 312, 69 Am. St. Rep. 171, 30 S. E. 840; and McCrary v. Pritchard, 119 Ga. 876, 47 S. E. 341].

7 Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Bon-durant, 107 Va. 515, 122 Am. St. Rep. 867, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 443, 59 S. E. 1091.

It is probably proper to say that there is no "valid" contract until ratification, since a contract induced by fraud may be avoided until the right to avoid is barred by ratification or by lapse of time.9