If a party is deceived or misled into believing that the material facts are different from what they really are, or is led to place his belief in the existence of alleged conditions or circumstances which are purely suppositious, and is thereby induced to enter into a contract, it is evident that his consent has not been freely and intelligently given. A party who has been induced to enter into a contract or any kind of obligations by means of material misrepresentations made fraudulently by the other party, to his resulting prejudice, will be entitled to rescind the contract upon discovering the fraud, or to be relieved in a court of equity.1

The essential elements of a fraudulent misrepresentation have been stated in a large number of cases, somewhat as follows : (a) There must have been a false representation as to a material matter of fact; (b) There must have been a scienter or guilty knowledge of its falsity on the part of the person making it; (c) The person to whom it was made must have been ignorant of its falsity; (d) There must have been an intention that it should have been acted upon by him; (e) The latter must have relied upon the misrepresentation and have been deceived by it, and acted upon it ;2 (f) Resulting loss

1. Blampey v. Pike, 155 Mich. 384; Grand Rapids R. Co. v. Stevens, 143 Mich. 646; Miller v. Voohies, 115 Mich. 356; Match v. Hunt, 38 Mich. 1; Wright v. Wright, 37 Mich. 35; Webster v. Bailey, 31 Mich. 36.

2. "Where the defendant as a defense in an action for the balance due on a land contract set up that plaintiff had represented that his title was unencumbered, while in fact it was encumbered by a deed given as security for a loan, but that he discovered the false representations the day after the execution of the contract, and thereafter paid a part of the consideration, held that defendant was in no position to maintain his defense." Darling v. Haff, 175 Mich. 304.

"The broker of the defendant represented to plaintiff that the property contained 40 acres, 6-room frame house, small barn and room enough for five horses; 175 fruit trees in good bearing condition, or damage or injury must be shown as a consequence.3

In Michigan it is not necessary that there be a scienter or guilty knowledge of its falsity on the part of the person making it, as it has been often held that it is immaterial whether a false representation is made innocently or fraudulently, if by its means the party to whom it is made is injured.4 A vendor of real property who agrees to convey a merchantable title is not relieved of false representations concerning the title, although he supposes the statements to be true.5 If there was in fact a misrepresentation, though made innocently, and its deceptive influence was effective, the consequences to the plaintiff being as serious as though it had proceeded from a vicious purpose, he would have a right of action for damages caused thereby, either at law or in equity.6

A vendor of land must be prepared and able to convey to the purchaser a property substantially corresponding with that bargained for, as well with regard to the title as to the situation and condition of the property, and any material misrepresentation made to induce the bargain, and which so far effects the subject matter that the agreement would not have been entered into except for its influence, is a fraud which will vitiate the transaction, and give the purchaser a right to rescind or to be released from his contract.7 fences fair, rents at $100.00, the representations being untrue, the plaintiff brought suit for damages, held that plaintiff is not entitled to recover where the defendant informed plaintiff of the true character of the property before completing the trade, plaintiff no longer having a right to rely on the statements of the broker." Aldrich v. Schribner, 146 Mich. 609.

3. Fraud and representation can exist only when a false statement has been made, but if a statement is false when made, and is made true by the subsequent conduct of the party responsible for such statement, before the time for the performance of the contract arrives, such statement does not amount to fraud or misrepresentation. Johnson v. Seymour, 79 Mich. 156.

4. Patron Fire Ins. Co. v. Pagen-koff, 213 Mich. 158; Aldrich v. Scribner, 154 Mich. 23.

5. Casset v. O'Riley, 160 Mich. 101.

6. Halcomb v. Noble, 69 Mich. 396; Steinbach v. Hill, 25 Mich. 78.

7. Mather v. Barnes (C. C), 146 Fed. 1000; Bryan v. Houseman-Spitzley Corp., 213 Mich. 236; Barn-hardt v. Hamel, 207 Mich. 232; Hutchinson v. Westbrook, 191 Mich. 484.

Sec. 205. Materiality Of Representations

Not only the falsity of the misrepresentations must be shown, but also the fact that they were material to the transaction, that is to say, not trifling or unimportant, but relating to a substantial matter and of such a character that the party defrauded would not have entered into the contract if he had known the truth of the matter.8 Thus, for instance, rescission of a land contract will not be granted on the ground of fraudulent representations of the vendor to the vendee as to the title to the premises, unless that portion of the land to which he cannot make title constitutes the principal inducement to the purchase, and without which the land purchased would be unfit for the purpose intended.9