CIV § 1572

Actual fraud: 5 types under California CIV § 1572

CIV § 1572 defines actual fraud as five acts: false suggestion, unwarranted assertion, suppression of truth, promise without intent, or deception.

Official text CIV § 1572 — California

Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract:

  • 1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
  • 2. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
  • 3. The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
  • 4. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or, 5. Any other act fitted to deceive.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 1572 defines actual fraud for the purposes of consent to a contract. It consists of any of five acts, committed by a party to the contract or with that party's connivance, with intent to deceive another party or to induce them to enter into the contract.

The five are worth reading individually, because they are not all the same wrong. First, the suggestion as a fact of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true — the plain lie. Second, the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though they believe it to be true — the confident assurance given without any basis, which catches the seller who says "the roof is fine" having never checked. Third, the suppression of that which is true by one having knowledge or belief of the fact — concealment, which is where undisclosed defects live. Fourth, a promise made without any intention of performing it. Fifth, any other act fitted to deceive, a residual category that stops the list being read as exhaustive.

The intent requirement runs across all five: intent to deceive, or to induce entry into the contract. What the section does not contain is the rest of a fraud claim — reliance, causation and damage come from elsewhere, and the measure of damages where the fraud concerned the purchase or sale of property is the out-of-pocket rule in § 3343. Sections 1709 and 1710 state the parallel tort of deceit, which is not confined to parties to a contract. Fraud is also a ground of rescission under § 1689(b)(1), so a defrauded party may have a choice between unwinding the contract and claiming damages. Which of those is available on your facts is a question for a lawyer.

When it applies

  • A used car sold with an assurance about the engine that the seller had never checked
  • A house sold without disclosing the flooding that happens every winter
  • A promise to deliver or to pay made by someone who never intended to
  • An odometer or a service history that was not what it appeared
  • A business sold on figures the seller knew were wrong
  • A partner who concealed a material fact to get you to sign

What this section does not say

  • It is not just about lies. Suppression of a known truth and a confident assertion made without any basis for it are both within the list.
  • A broken promise is not automatically fraud. Item 4 requires that the promise was made without any intention of performing it at the time, not that performance later failed.
  • It does not contain the whole claim. Reliance, causation and damage are required elsewhere, and the measure for fraud in a purchase or sale of property is § 3343.
  • It is confined to parties and their connivance. Deceit by someone who is not a party to the contract is the tort in §§ 1709 and 1710.
  • It does not tell you what remedy to take. Fraud grounds rescission under § 1689(b)(1) as well as a damages claim, and the choice has consequences.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A private seller advertises a car as having a recently rebuilt gearbox and tells the buyer it drives perfectly. The gearbox fails within a fortnight, and it emerges the seller had never had it looked at and was repeating what he had been told when he bought it.

How the wording applies

Item 2 of section 1572 covers a positive assertion, not warranted by the information the speaker has, of something that is not true, even where the speaker believed it. The outcome turns on what the seller actually knew at the moment of the assurance: repeating hearsay as personal knowledge is within the section, while saying that a previous owner had claimed it was rebuilt is not the same statement at all.

How the parties settled it

The seller refunds the cost of the gearbox repair and the buyer keeps the car, with both signing that the sale is otherwise final.

Illustrative example

A couple buy a house and find in the first heavy rain that the garage floods, which neighbours say has happened every winter for years. The seller says nothing was hidden and that the buyers never asked.

How the wording applies

Suppression of a fact by one who knows it, with intent to induce the other to enter the contract, is within item 3. It turns on knowledge rather than on whether a question was asked: a seller who had been sandbagging the door each winter knew the fact and kept it back, while flooding that began after a drain outside the property collapsed may have been nothing the seller could have suppressed.

How the parties settled it

The seller contributes an agreed share of a drainage remedy, paid when the work starts, and the buyers drop any further claim about the garage.

Illustrative example

A supplier signs a contract promising delivery in four weeks, having already told its own staff the lead time was at least three months and having taken on no capacity to shorten it. The buyer had turned down another quote on the strength of the date.

How the wording applies

Item 4 covers a promise made without any intention of performing it. The fact the answer hinges on is the supplier's state of mind when it signed, not the later slippage: internal evidence that the date was known to be impossible is a very different thing from a schedule that fell apart afterwards.

How the parties settled it

The supplier releases the buyer from the contract without a cancellation charge and pays the difference between the two quotes.

The same problem elsewhere

The other legal systems in this collection answer the same everyday problem with their own provisions.

The comparison and these one-line summaries are in English.

The seller knew about the defect and said nothing: what the law says in 7 jurisdictions

Read the full comparison →

Related sections

CIV § 1709 Liable for damage from willful deceit: CIV § 1709 CIV § 1710 4 kinds of deceit under CIV § 1710 CIV § 3343 CIV § 3343: Out-of-pocket difference + additional damages CIV § 1689 Grounds to rescind: mistake, duress, fraud (CIV § 1689)

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CIV § 1572 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages