(a)One defrauded in the purchase, sale or exchange of property is entitled to recover the difference between the actual value of that with which the defrauded person parted and the actual value of that which he received, together with any additional damage arising from the particular transaction, including any of the following:
(1)Amounts actually and reasonably expended in reliance upon the fraud.
(2)An amount which would compensate the defrauded party for loss of use and enjoyment of the property to the extent that
any such loss was proximately caused by the fraud.
(3)Where the defrauded party has been induced by reason of the fraud to sell or otherwise part with the property in question, an amount which will compensate him for profits or other gains which might reasonably have been earned by use of the property had he retained it.
(4)Where the defrauded party has been induced by reason of the fraud to purchase or otherwise acquire the property in question, an amount which will compensate him for any loss of profits or other gains which were reasonably anticipated and would have been earned by him from the use or sale of the property had it possessed the characteristics fraudulently attributed to it by the party committing the fraud, provided that lost profits from the use or sale of the property shall be recoverable only if and only to the extent that all of the following apply:
(i)The defrauded party acquired the property for the purpose of using or reselling it for a profit.
(ii)The defrauded party reasonably relied on the fraud in entering into the transaction and in anticipating profits from the subsequent use or sale of the property.
(iii)Any loss of profits for which damages are sought under this paragraph have been proximately caused by the fraud and the defrauded party’s reliance on it.
(b)Nothing in this section shall do either of the following:
(1)Permit the defrauded person to recover any amount measured by the difference between the value of property as represented and the actual value thereof.
(2)Deny to any person having a cause of action for fraud or deceit any legal or equitable remedies to which such person may be entitled.
Notes of Decisions
Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 932 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “ing] the amount of actual damages for a CLRA award,” which provides that “[o]ne defrauded in the purchase, sale or exchange of property is entitled to recover the difference between the actual value of that with which the defrauded person parted and the actual value of that…”
Fragale v. Faulkner, 3 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5955 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “) Civil Code section 3343 provides the exclusive measure of damages for fraud in such cases.”
In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 313 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 2× “In arguing that Plaintiffs are limited to out-of-pocket losses, Defendants rely on California Civil Code § 3343. Section 3343(a) states that "[o]ne defrauded in the *1135 purchase, sale or exchange of property is entitled to recover the difference between the actual value of…”
Cont'l Airlines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 216 Cal. App. 3d 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 3× “According to Douglas, the proper measure of damages in fraud actions involving the sale of property is “explicitly and exclusively” set forth in *430 Civil Code section 3343 as “the difference between the actual value of that with which the defrauded person parted and the actual…”
Mirkin v. Wasserman, 858 P.2d 568 (Cal. 1993).
· cites it 2× “” (Civ. Code, § 3343, subd. (a).) However, lost profits are also available when “[t]he defrauded party reasonably relied on the fraud in entering into the transaction and in anticipating profits from the subsequent use or sale of the property.”
Allstate Ins. v. Miller, 743 F. Supp. 723 (N.D. Cal. 1990).
· cites it 5× “While the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress might otherwise state a claim constituting “bodily injury” under the policy, the controlling legislative restriction on damages in the underlying action has been interpreted to preclude any recovery for…”
Channell v. Anthony, 58 Cal. App. 3d 290 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 4× “27 “California Civil Code § 3343 provides in pertinent part as follows: “(a) One defrauded in the purchase, sale or exchange of property is entitled to recover the difference between the actual value of that with which the defrauded person parted and the actual value of that…”
Veera v. Banana Repub., LLC, 6 Cal. App. 5th 907 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“4th 312, 316-318 [real property transaction in which plaintiff is misled at inception of transaction, enters purchase contract, learns of fraud while property is in escrow, and still closes escrow; plaintiff may still establish reliance to support fraud claim, as permitted by…”
S. Union Co. v. Sw. Gas Corp., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (D. Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 3× “In its Reply, Southern Union contends that it “is only under [Cal. Civ.Code § 3343] — which applies to fraud cases involving property transactions — that a party must demonstrate a 'fiduciary duty* in order to recover ‘benefit-of-the-bargain’ damages.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3343(a) — 6 cases
— Cal. Civil Code § 3343(a)(1) — 3 cases
— Cal. Civil Code § 3343(a)(4) — 1 case
— Cal. Civil Code § 3343(a)(l) — 1 case
Allstate Ins. v. Miller, 743 F. Supp. 723 (N.D. Cal. 1990).
“While the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress might otherwise state a claim constituting “bodily injury” under the policy, the controlling legislative restriction on damages in the underlying action has been interpreted to preclude any recovery for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.