Fraud Does Not Require Reliance If The Statement Was Intentional
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Torts1
Example wrong choices
18914_rare_bible_provenance · TORTS · Choice BThe buyer automatically wins because oral assurances always override written provenance in tort.
Why it's attractive
The suit is for fraud (tort), not for breach of contract. The 'oral overrides written' trope is a private-law contract doctrine that does not control the reliance analysis in tort.
Why it's wrong
The suit is for fraud (tort), not for breach of contract. The 'oral overrides written' trope is a private-law contract doctrine that does not control the reliance analysis in tort.
18914_rare_bible_provenance · TORTS · Choice CThe seller made no factual statement because the originality of Bible pages is always opinion.
Why it's attractive
Page originality in a specific copy of a specific book is a verifiable historical fact, not a value judgment or prediction. The 'always opinion' framing is the tell.
Why it's wrong
Page originality in a specific copy of a specific book is a verifiable historical fact, not a value judgment or prediction. The 'always opinion' framing is the tell.
18914_rare_bible_provenance · TORTS · Choice DFraud does not require reliance if the seller's statement was intentional.
Why it's attractive
Reliance is an independent element of fraud. Proving the defendant's scienter does not waive the reliance requirement.
Why it's wrong
Reliance is an independent element of fraud. Proving the defendant's scienter does not waive the reliance requirement.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →