The fact that in making false representations, the promissor is acting for others, may render his principals liable also, but gives him, the promissor, no immunity for the false representations that he made. If the promissor made the false representations with fradulent design, and damage resulted from them to the person relying on the representations, the promissor is liable, though he may not have profited from them or had any interest in the deception, and although the fraud may have induced the promissee to contract with others as well as the promissor, and the fact that the promissor's false representations may not have been the sole inducing cause is immaterial.1
Add the following footnote:
See also Sec. 337.
1 Laska v. Harris, 215 N. Y. 554 (1915); Haener v. McKenzie 154 N. W. (Mich.) 59 (1915).