Fraud in the inducement occurs where a party’s assent to a contract is obtained through “conscious misrepresentation, or concealment, or non-disclosure of a material fact which induces the innocent party to enter the contract.” (Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School Dist. (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 123, 128; see also Civ. Code, § 1572.)

“Fraud in the inducement is a subset of the tort of fraud.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.) It occurs when “the promisor knows what he is signing but his consent is induced by fraud, mutual assent is present and a contract is formed, which, by reason of the fraud, is voidable.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294–295.)

To establish a claim of fraudulent inducement, one must show that the defendant did not intend to honor its contractual promises when they were made. (Agosta v. Astor (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 596, 603.)

“A promise of future conduct is actionable as fraud only if made without a present intent to perform.... something more than nonperformance is required to prove the defendant's intent not to perform his promise.... '[I]f plaintiff adduces no further evidence of fraudulent intent than proof of nonperformance of an oral promise, he will never reach a jury.'” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 481.)

To advance a cognizable fraud claim, “every element of the cause of action... must be alleged in full, factually and specifically, and the policy of liberal construction of pleading will not usually be invoked to sustain a fraud claim deficient in any material respect.” (Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & Russell (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1324, 1331.) Fraud must be plead with particularity and specificity rather than with general or conclusory allegations. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184.) This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made. (Morgan v. AT & T Wireless Services, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1261–1262.) To state the claim against an entity, the plaintiff must also include allegations regarding the speaker’s authority to bind the entity. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)

A three-year statute of limitation applies to fraud claims. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d).)