Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Reborn Cabinets Inc.’s Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. CCP § 430.10(e).
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Reborn Cabinets Inc. brings this demurrer challenging the third cause of action for fraud in the First Amended Cross-Complaint. Defendant/Cross-Complainant must allege the following basic elements to support a cause of action for promissory fraud:
1. Promise made regarding a material fact;
2. promisor’s lack of any intention of performing at the time of making the promise, based upon:
a. specific factual circumstances beyond contract breach;
b. inferring a contemporaneous intent not to perform;
3. the promise was made with intent to deceive or to induce the party to whom it was made to enter into the agreement;
4. the party to whom it was made relied on the promise;
5. the party making the promise did not perform; and
6. the party to whom the promise was made was injured.
Regus v. Schartkoff (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d
Type
BREACH OF CONTRACT (Limited Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Reborn Cabinets Inc.’s Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. CCP § 430.10(e).
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Reborn Cabinets Inc. brings this demurrer challenging the third cause of action for fraud in the First Amended Cross-Complaint. Defendant/Cross-Complainant must allege the following basic elements to support a cause of action for promissory fraud:
1. Promise made regarding a material fact;
2. promisor’s lack of any intention of performing at the time of making the promise, based upon:
a. specific factual circumstances beyond contract breach;
b. inferring a contemporaneous intent not to perform;
3. the promise was made with intent to deceive or to induce the party to whom it was made to enter into the agreement;
4. the party to whom it was made relied on the promise;
5. the party making the promise did not perform; and
6. the party to whom the promise was made was injured.
Regus v. Schartkoff (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d