## Facts

- Larry W. Beavers sought to buy a residence in Oklahoma City and contacted the listing broker, Lamplighters Realty, Inc.
- Beavers initially offered $34,500 for the property; the seller rejected the offer.
- Beavers later spoke with the broker’s representative, who stated that the original builder was about to buy the property within the hour with a $37,000 check.
- The representative identified the purported buyer by name and reiterated the stated price when asked.
- Relying on the asserted competing offer, Beavers increased his offer to $37,250, and the sale closed.
- After the sale, the builder told Beavers he had not made an offer and believed the property was worth only in the low $30,000 range.
- Beavers sued the broker for deceit, alleging the fabricated competing offer induced him to pay more than he otherwise would have paid.
- The trial court sustained the broker’s demurrer to Beavers’ evidence and entered judgment for the broker.

## Issues

1. Whether a broker’s false statement that a named third party is about to purchase the property for a stated price is a misrepresentation of existing fact, rather than nonactionable sales talk.
2. Whether evidence that the buyer raised his offer because of that false statement is sufficient to submit fraud/deceit to the jury.
3. Whether overpayment induced by deceit is a compensable injury even though the buyer received the property bargained for.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded.
- The appellate court held the demurrer should have been overruled because the evidence, viewed in Beavers’ favor, could support each element of actionable fraud.
- The court treated the asserted competing offer as a statement of present fact and therefore potentially actionable if false and relied upon.
- The court accepted that damages could be based on the amount Beavers paid above what he would otherwise have paid absent the misrepresentation.

## Legal Principles

- Fraud may be based on a false representation of a material, existing fact made with intent to induce reliance, followed by actual and justifiable reliance causing damage.
- A fabricated “present competing offer,” particularly one identifying a specific buyer and price, is a representation of fact rather than an opinion about value or permissible bargaining pressure.
- Overpayment caused by fraudulent inducement is a cognizable injury even when the purchaser receives the property contracted for.
- On a demurrer to the evidence, the court must treat the plaintiff’s evidence as true and give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences; if a jury could find fraud on that record, the case must proceed.

## Conclusion

Because the evidence could support a finding that the broker knowingly lied about a present competing offer to induce Beavers to raise his bid and pay more than he otherwise would have paid, the trial court erred in taking the case from the jury; the judgment for the broker was reversed and the case remanded.


Beavers v. Lamplighters Realty, Inc., 556 P.2d 1328 (Okla. Ct. Civ. App. 1976)