CACI No. 1900 series: fraud, concealment and misrepresentation

Fraud in California is defined by statute. Civil Code section 1710 lists four kinds of deceit, and CACI gives each its own instruction in the 1900 series (Civ. Code § 1710; CACI Nos. 1900 to 1908). The claims differ in what the defendant did and knew. Intentional misrepresentation, false promise and negligent misrepresentation end with the same three elements: reasonable reliance, harm, and reliance as a substantial factor in causing the harm. Concealment uses a parallel version, asking whether the plaintiff reasonably would have behaved differently with the full facts, and whether the concealment was a substantial factor.

CACI No. 1900: intentional misrepresentation

This is the classic fraud claim. The plaintiff must prove seven elements:

1. The defendant told the plaintiff that something was a fact.
2. The representation was false.
3. The defendant knew it was false when it was made, or made it recklessly without regard for the truth.
4. The defendant intended the plaintiff to rely on it.
5. The plaintiff reasonably relied on it.
6. The plaintiff was harmed.
7. The plaintiff's reliance was a substantial factor in causing the harm.

The Directions for Use make two points. A representation can be oral, written or made through conduct. And it ordinarily has to be a statement of fact, not an opinion. Opinions have their own instruction, CACI No. 1904. The Sources and Authority note that sales talk, or puffing, is generally treated as opinion unless it concerns product safety.

CACI No. 1901: concealment

Concealment covers facts that were hidden or left out. The first element comes in several versions, and the plaintiff proves one of them:

• The parties had a fiduciary relationship, such as business partners, and the defendant intentionally failed to disclose certain facts.
• The defendant disclosed some facts but intentionally left out others, which made the disclosure deceptive.
• The defendant intentionally failed to disclose facts known only to it that the plaintiff could not have discovered.
• The defendant prevented the plaintiff from discovering certain facts.

The plaintiff must also prove not knowing the concealed facts, the defendant's intent to deceive, that the plaintiff reasonably would have behaved differently if the information had been disclosed, harm, and causation. The Directions for Use explain that a duty to disclose usually comes from a fiduciary or confidential relationship. Outside one, the duty can still arise in the three other situations listed above, citing the California Supreme Court's decision in Warner Construction Corp. v. City of Los Angeles (1970).

CACI No. 1902: false promise

A broken promise alone is a contract problem. It becomes fraud when the defendant never meant to keep it. Under CACI No. 1902, the plaintiff must prove the defendant made a promise, did not intend to perform it when it was made, intended the plaintiff to rely on it, the plaintiff reasonably relied on it, the defendant did not perform, and the plaintiff was harmed with reliance as a substantial factor. The state of mind at the moment of the promise is what separates this claim from an ordinary breach of contract.

CACI No. 1903: negligent misrepresentation

Negligent misrepresentation has the same structure as CACI No. 1900 with one change. The third element asks whether the defendant had no reasonable grounds for believing the statement was true, and the instruction allows that the defendant may have honestly believed it. Section 1710 describes this as asserting something untrue without reasonable grounds for believing it. The Directions for Use say both instructions can be given when the two claims are pleaded in the alternative.

CACI No. 1907 and 1908: reliance

Reliance has two instructions of its own. Under CACI No. 1907, the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation, concealment or false promise if it substantially influenced the plaintiff's decision and the plaintiff probably would not have acted the same way without it. It does not have to be the only reason.

CACI No. 1908 governs whether the reliance was reasonable. The Directions for Use describe three steps. The matter must be material, judged by whether a reasonable person would find it important. If it is, reasonableness is judged against this plaintiff's intelligence, knowledge, education and experience, not an imagined average person. And some claims are too preposterous for anyone to rely on, as are statements that facts within the plaintiff's own observation show to be obviously false.

Questions to sort a fraud claim

• What exactly was said or hidden? Write down the words, the date and who was present.
• Was it a fact or an opinion? Sales talk is usually treated as opinion.
• What did the other side know? Knowledge, recklessness and careless belief lead to different claims.
• Why did you rely on it? Note what you would have done differently with the truth.
• What did it cost you? Keep the purchase records and repair or replacement costs.

This page explains California's official jury instructions for general readers and is legal information, not legal advice. Fraud claims carry their own pleading and timing rules; consult a lawyer licensed in California about a specific situation.