Is a fraudster liable for losses in this situation? The usual rule of law is that a fraudster is liable for all losses/restitution, due to their fraud, whether or not reasonably foreseeable. Suppose a fraudster's deception causes a person to take a course of action they wouldn't have otherwise taken. As part of that, they suffer losses due to a second person's tort. Is that loss recoverable from the fraudster as well? Specific situation: A person (A) seeks to buy an asset but is greatly deceived by the owner (F) of the asset. (I'm assuming that deceit, reliance, litigation etc are clear, see assumptions at end of Q). A attempts to be safe by asking a professional valuer (V) for an opinion on the asset before signing, but V was negligent and the valuation was defective. (I'm assuming blatant negligence, reliance, etc) As a result, A suffers a loss. If either (1) F had been honest, or (2) even with a dishonest seller had V not been negligent, A would not have bought the asset and therefore would not have suffered the loss. Usually A would seek damages for their entire loss from V, because professionals often carry insurance against negligence claims. But I am interested in whether, in law, F still remains liable for A's entire loss, despite any impact of V. Reasons for A wishing to hold F liable for the entirety of loss might be: V is now living overseas and hard to litigate against; V did not actually have insurance, or there would be no assets to pay the claim if successful; V is a personal friend of A and A wants to avoid suing his friend and breaking a friendship; A incurred various unrecoverable expenses in claiming against V, and he feels that F should be liable for all losses flowing from the deceit; An associate or relation of A (called "B") has also suffered from the deceit and purchase of the asset but B lacked a contractual relationship with V and was not foreseeably reliant on V's defective valuation, and therefore B's only recourse is against F for the loss flowing from a deceit, not V. Legal arguments A argues that, but for the deceit, neither A or B would have been exposed to a defective valuation or defective asset in the first place, so their entire losses flow from F's deceit and the subsequent valuation error is irrelevant: without F's deceit they wouldn't have put themselves in a position of relying on V in the first place. F argues that he isn't liable for any material amount of damages to A or B, or for any unrecovered outlay A incurred in suing V, because ultimately A and B only suffered loss in the end due to an unconnected third party's negligence (V). In the alternative, F argues that if found liable, he is only liable for part of the losses claimed by A and B, due to contributory negligence by V. Is there clear precedent in case law that backs either of their positions? Or, put another way, is there case law precedent for a deceiver being liable for loss due to a subsequent problem, on the legal ground that "but for the deceit the claimant would never have put themselves in a position where they would have been exposed to the risk of that subsequent problem, in the first place"? NOTE: Assume for this question that UK law applies, and all criteria for the claims are met: the fact of any deceit or negligence is blatant and uncontested, the fact of reliance or mitigation is uncontested, and so on. So the question is only about how the subsequent matter affects F's liability.
The underlying assumption in this question seems to be that because A received defective professional advice from V, F may be free of blame. I believe that assumption is wrong. The gist of the question is this: Suppose a fraudster's deception causes a person to take a course of action they wouldn't have otherwise taken. As part of that, they suffer losses due to a second person's tort. Is that loss recoverable from the fraudster as well? In the scenario given, there are clearly two parties that are to blame for the loss: The fraudster, who perpetrated the fraud. The professional attorney, who gave defective advice. The fact that there also exists a second party that may have contributed to the loss does not in any way absolve the first party from blame or from being liable for his actions. In a tort case, it is always the person that caused the loss in the first place (the tortfeasor) the victim (A) should seek relief from first. So F is in no way “safe from litigaton”. In the event that the tortfeasor is not being able make full restitution (e.g. he is already bankrupt), A may sue V for professional negligence to recover his loss. However, to prevail, A vould must be able to prove that V has made critical errors that no “reasonable attorney” would have made. That is sometimes pretty hard to prove (it obviously depends on how clever F's deception was, and whether the number of hours A allowed V to use for due diligence should have been sufficient to uncover the deception). As for legal precedent, I am not aware of a single case where a fraudster has not been held liable because the victim of the fraud has sought professional advice (but it is of course not easy to locate precedent for something has not occured).
Well ... the crime of fraud and the tort of deception. If you say you will do X and enter a contract on that basis knowing that you won't then that is fraud and it carries gaol time. Your bank could also revoke your contract and sue for damages.
You have been told that the other person's insurance may not be valid. Why it may not doesn't really matter, perhaps the other person didn't pay premiums or lied on an application. So the situation is much the same as if the other person is uninsured or under insured. Your p[olicy must cover things. And your policy has a deductible. So you have to pay the deductable amount. That is what a deductible is, the amount that you must pay before your policy coverage kicks in. The lower it is, the higher your premium is. You don't have any choice about that. Depending on your jurisdiction, you may be able to sue the other person involved in the accident, and get that person to pay. Your insurance company might do this for you, but if they won't you would have to hire a lawyer yourself to do that. Such a lawyer could get all the details of your case, and advise you of your options.
Broadly speaking, theft offences in common law jurisdictions are defined as the dishonest appropriation of property that belongs to another with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it, without proper authority (e.g. permission or legal right to do that). Appropriation means the assumption of the rights of ownership of the property, i.e. behaving as if you were now its owner, not simply or solely the taking of the property. Possible defences include absence of intent to deprive the rightful owner of the property and intent to search for the rightful owner of the property and return it to them. You say: The facts are presented as follows: One day, couple wakes up to $120,000 extra dollars due to teller error. The money was intended for a business. They are aware that this must be an error but spend the money anyway. The bank wants the money back. The couple quits talking to the bank. The couple is charged with theft and receiving stolen property. I don't know about the charge of receiving stolen property (unless that relates to how they transferred or spent the money) but on the facts presented it's certainly prima facie theft. Reportedly, by their own admissions they found money in their account that wasn't theirs, they knew it wasn't theirs and they spent it.
Unfortunately for you, the insurance company is right. Even with the rise of modern consumer protection law, caveat emptor ("Let the buyer beware") still largely applies to real estate transactions. Exceptions are where the building is new (not applicable), the seller gave a specific warranty (unlikely) or the seller deliberately concealed the defect (not applicable). If, as you say, the damage was "completely hidden" it is unlikely that your building inspector was negligent or breached their contract so you cannot recover from them. Sadly, this is at your cost. Your insurer may be liable but that would depend on the terms of your insurance policy.
what if it is established in court that you knowingly or through gross negligence included a falsehood, or a claim you have no evidence for, just to clear that initial hurdle? What would the consequences be for that? The case proceeds and if it goes to trial, the finder of fact determines if the case prevails or not. Also, note that except in the case of a verified complaint, a complaint in a civil case is not made under oath or under penalty of perjury. In the rare and unlikely event that it is established that you knew that your case had no factual basis at the outset, you (and your attorney in many cases), can be sanctioned by the court, usually in the form of the attorney fees incurred by other side as a result of the knowingly false statement.
Depends on where you are, and likely also on what they knew when. It is entirely normal to order some goods (like perishable food, or custom-fitted furniture) before it is produced. The contract may or may not include advance payment. Most jurisdictions require some sort of intent for fraud, so the non-fulfillment would not be fraud if circumstances beyond the control of the supplier prevent delivery. The question of civil damages and repayment is distinct from criminal fraud charges.
This is likely to depend on whether Person B is aware of what Person A is doing, regardless of any imputations Person A makes as to the nature of their business. If Person B is aware, or it is found that Person B ought to have been aware, that Person A is doing something illegal, then they may be held contributorily liable for damages suffered. For instance, in (what is still) a landmark case for copyright infringement, A&amp;M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001), Napster was found to be contributorily guilty of copyright infringement. A defense that they attempted is they weren't aware of it - which was thrown out on the basis that they should have, and could have, known that it was happening. I'm not a lawyer, but you'll need to give a lot more information about the situation for liability to be determined. Oh, and also &mdash; both of them could be held liable. It's not necessarily a case of one or the other.