inducement claim in Georgia

2015Although OCGA § 9-11-9 (b) requires that claims of fraud be pled with particularity, “a complaint alleging fraud should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the pleader can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” (Citation omitted.) Roberts v. Nessim, 297 Ga. App. 278, 284-285 (2) ( 676 SE2d 734 ) (2009).

2015Although OCGA § 9-11-9 (b) requires that claims of fraud be pled with particularity, “a complaint alleging fraud should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the pleader can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” (Citation omitted.) Roberts v. Nessim, 297 Ga. App. 278, 284-285 (2) ( 676 SE2d 734 ) (2009).

2011See Dickey v. Clipper Petroleum, Inc., 280 Ga. App. 475, 478 (2) ( 634 SE2d 425 ) (2006) (plaintiff failed to allege or prove a defect in the installed equipment; fraud in the inducement claim was barred by decision to affirm the contract).

2011See Dickey v. Clipper Petroleum, Inc., 280 Ga. App. 475, 478 (2) ( 634 SE2d 425 ) (2006) (plaintiff failed to allege or prove a defect in the installed equipment; fraud in the inducement claim was barred by decision to affirm the contract).

2010Compare Herman Homes, Inc. v. Smith, 249 Ga. App. 131, 132-133 ( 547 SE2d 591 ) (2001) (where buyer “elects to affirm a purchase agreement which contains a merger or entire agreement clause, he ... is precluded from recovering for the seller’s alleged fraudulent inducement based on misrepresentations made outside the contract”).

2010Compare Herman Homes, Inc. v. Smith, 249 Ga. App. 131, 132-133 ( 547 SE2d 591 ) (2001) (where buyer “elects to affirm a purchase agreement which contains a merger or entire agreement clause, he ... is precluded from recovering for the seller’s alleged fraudulent inducement based on misrepresentations made outside the contract”).

2007Tankersley first argues that the evidence here does not support the existence of a confidential relationship, and that in the absence of such a relationship, Barker cannot show that she reasonably relied on Tankersley’s representations that he would repay the money she loaned to him. 1 “Absent a fiduciary or confidential relationship with the defendant, the plaintiff must exercise due diligence before relying upon the representations or silence of another.” Middleton v. Troy Young Realty, Inc., 257 Ga. App. 771, 773 (b) ( 572 SE2d 334 ) (2002).

2007Tankersley first argues that the evidence here does not support the existence of a confidential relationship, and that in the absence of such a relationship, Barker cannot show that she reasonably relied on Tankersley’s representations that he would repay the money she loaned to him. 1 “Absent a fiduciary or confidential relationship with the defendant, the plaintiff must exercise due diligence before relying upon the representations or silence of another.” Middleton v. Troy Young Realty, Inc., 257 Ga. App. 771, 773 (b) ( 572 SE2d 334 ) (2002).