“Mere silence as to facts is not fraud”. Explain with examples.

Introduction

Fraud, under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, includes acts intended to deceive or to induce another party to enter into a contract. However, the law also provides that mere silence about facts does not amount to fraud, unless it falls within specific exceptions. This principle ensures that parties to a contract take reasonable responsibility for verifying facts, while also penalizing intentional deceit.

Main Body

Definition of Fraud (Section 17)

Fraud includes the following:

  • False suggestion made knowingly
  • Active concealment of facts
  • Promises made without intention to perform
  • Any other act fitted to deceive
  • Any such act or omission as the law declares to be fraudulent

However, the explanation to Section 17 clearly states: “Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud.”

Why Mere Silence is Not Fraud

  • Every contract does not require full disclosure of all material facts
  • Each party is expected to use due diligence
  • Silence does not amount to representation

Example: A sells a horse to B. The horse is unsound, but A says nothing. If B does not ask and A remains silent, there is no fraud.

Exceptions: When Silence Amounts to Fraud

1. Duty to Speak

If there is a fiduciary or special relationship where one party expects full disclosure, silence may amount to fraud.

Example: Between doctor and patient, lawyer and client, employer and employee.

2. Half Truth

If a party speaks partially and conceals other material facts, it becomes fraudulent.

Example: Telling a buyer that a product was recently serviced, while concealing that major repairs are still needed.

3. Change in Circumstances

If a true statement becomes false due to a change in circumstances before the contract is finalized, the party must inform the other.

4. Active Concealment

Intentionally hiding a defect or issue amounts to fraud.

Example: Painting over a cracked wall before showing the property to a buyer.

Judicial View

Case: Keates v. Cadogan
The landlord did not inform the tenant that the house was uninhabitable. The court held that silence did not amount to fraud.

Case: Derry v. Peek
False representation must involve knowledge of untruth or reckless disregard for the truth.

Precautionary Measures

  • Ask specific questions about critical facts
  • Conduct due diligence or inspection
  • Include warranties or representations in the contract

Conclusion

While fraud involves deception and dishonesty, mere silence does not constitute fraud unless there is a duty to disclose, a half-truth, or active concealment. Understanding the distinction helps in safeguarding contractual interests and promoting fairness and accountability in commercial dealings.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Disabled !