Opinion ID: 565454
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: a material representation of a party was false,

Text: 14 (2) falsity was known to that party or the misrepresentation was made with such reckless indifference to the truth as to impute the knowledge to him, 15 (3) the misrepresentation was made with the purpose to defraud (scienter) 16 (4) the person justifiably relied on the misrepresentation, and, 17 (5) the person suffered damage directly resulting from the misrepresentation. 18 42 Md.App. 421, 401 A.2d 480 (1979). We find, as did the court below, no evidence of fraud. 19 There is no evidence that the furniture transaction between Sovran, Mosse, and Sarubin left A & K in a position better or worse than it would have occupied had there been no agreement. Leslie was a mere channel for the purchase of the furniture; therefore, when the goods were leased back to Mount Vernon by Sovran, Leslie was not deprived of assets with which to pay A & K. As the furniture deal was neither fraudulent or detrimental to A & K, even if it could show the first element, a material misrepresentation, there is no demonstration of the fifth element, damage directly resulting from the misrepresentation. Moreover, A & K's contention that $48,000 was taken from Leslie and paid to Lake Eden, a Sarubin entity, is also without merit. The evidence reveals that Lake Eden advanced the project $290,000 from its own funds through Mount Vernon and received only $48,000 in repayment.