The Calcutta Law Journal February 16 1912

In some criticisms of the doctrine of the liability for fraud estalished in England by Derry v. Peek the doctritie of Courts of equity as to what constitutes fraud has been compared with the rule of Deny v. Peek and it has been urged that Courts of equity have not purported to give a new and different definition of fraud from that supposed to be held by Courts of law ; that fraud is the same [...] The falsity and fraud consists in representing that he knows the facts to be true of his own knowledge when he has not such knowledge."(i) It is to be observed that the Court makes no inquiry as to whether the defendant honestly believed that he knew the facts—it is enough that he asserted that he knew them ; and indeed it is not necessary to satisfy the requirement laid down by the Court that t [...] only cases where the profit of the misrepresentation enures to the benefit of the defendant or he is a party to a contract with the plaintiff induced by the misrepresentation. [...] Moreover the difficulty in extending the limits of liability beyond cases where the defendant is consciously dishonest has been increased by the objection of modern Judges and lawyers to the use of fiction in expressing the law. [...] It is better to state the law in terms which will give rise to as little misunderstanding as possible ; but the result reached by means of fictitious statement must not be discarded with the fiction when as has commonly been the case with fictions in the law the result reached is desirable though the mode of statement is confusing.