Also known as: pretenses · false pretenses
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A sham or nominal exchange that lacks any genuine bargained-for detriment. A performance or return promise satisfies the requirement of consideration only when it differs from an existing legal duty in a manner that reflects more than a pretense of bargain.
A sham or nominal exchange that lacks any genuine bargained-for detriment. A performance or return promise satisfies the requirement of consideration only when it differs from an existing legal duty in a manner that reflects more than a pretense of bargain.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A false representation of fact or a feigned agreement used to obtain title to property or to induce another to act. The term identifies the deceptive conduct that distinguishes false pretenses from larceny by trick and that negates the bilateral intent required for conspiracy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A false representation of fact or a feigned agreement used to obtain title to property or to induce another to act. The term identifies the deceptive conduct that distinguishes false pretenses from larceny by trick and that negates the bilateral intent required for conspiracy.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
GreenLoop Recycling already holds a contract requiring weekly curbside collection of all residential recycling. When volumes rise, GreenLoop sends a second truck on the same day and demands an extra monthly payment from the city. The city refuses. Because GreenLoop merely varies the method of fulfilling its existing duty, the promised performance reflects only a pretense of bargain and supplies no consideration for the city's promise to pay more.
A party already bound by a contractual duty supplies no consideration by promising to perform that same duty in a slightly different manner. The modification is unenforceable unless the new performance differs from the existing duty in a way that reflects more than a pretense of bargain.
Supporting sources
Caleb tells wheat farmer Nora that a distributor has already issued a written purchase order for her entire crop. In fact the distributor requested only a price quote. Relying on the statement, Nora signs over warehouse receipts and full title. Because Nora intended to convey title rather than mere custody, Caleb's knowing misrepresentation of an existing fact constitutes false pretenses rather than larceny by trick.
Dorothy proposes that Frances alter disbursement sheets to divert client funds and the two shake hands on the plan. Frances has already contacted a disciplinary investigator and never intends to carry out the diversion. Frances's pretense of agreement prevents formation of the bilateral intent required for common-law conspiracy, so neither party can be convicted.
Everett tells Katie that a foreign buyer has already executed a bill of sale and deposited funds in escrow for diverted electronics. Katie agrees only to store the crates pending resale. Because Katie intends to convey mere custody rather than title, Everett's false statements do not support a conviction for false pretenses.
A reporter obtains confidential business information by falsely representing that the material will remain private. The reporter then publishes the information for profit. Because the victim intended to convey only limited access rather than full title, the conduct is analyzed under false pretenses principles rather than simple larceny.
A state defends its marriage laws by asserting a traditional definition of marriage. Opponents argue the asserted rationale is mere pretense masking an intent to exclude same-sex couples. The Court must decide whether the stated justification reflects a genuine governmental interest or a pretextual barrier.
False pretenses requires that the victim intend to transfer title to the property. Larceny by trick applies when the victim intends to convey only custody or possession. Courts determine which offense occurred by examining the interest the victim meant to convey.
Supporting sources
No. Common-law conspiracy requires at least two persons who each genuinely intend to enter the agreement and accomplish its objective. When one party merely pretends to agree, the bilateral intent element fails and neither participant can be convicted.
Supporting sources
Yes. Under traditional common-law doctrine a false promise of future performance, even if made without present intent to perform, does not constitute false pretenses. The misrepresentation must relate to a past or existing fact.
Supporting sources
…has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the…