The law, both concepts differ especially on the

The treatment of fraud and misrepresentation have always been used interchangeably. In the perspective of law, both concepts differ especially on the part of remedies given, and the cases are dealt accordance with the provisions of either. They brought similar effects but varies in terms of intensity or magnitude. In comparison, fraud is with an intention to deceit, with a more severe penalty, while misrepresentation is merely not presenting the entire information. The misrepresented party may not have the full knowledge of the facts but fraud occurs with the aim of gaining at the expense of the other party. In dealing with Fraud and Misrepresentation under contract law, Malaysia uses Contract Law 1950, under Section 17 “Fraud” and Section 18 “Misrepresentation” which renders a contract voidable under Section 19. Contract Law in the United States (U.S.) does not have it federally, it differs from state to state. Although they adopted the standardized Uniform Commercial Code in transactions of goods, however, in other types of contracts, each state may codify their common law of contracts or adopt partially from the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. In United Kingdom (U.K.), their basic law is common law. They have Misrepresentation Act 1967 covering contract matters, but their Fraud Act 2006 does not. In this assignment, we will see thoroughly how these countries deal with the matter of fraud and misrepresentation under respective Contract Law then further identify their similarities and differences, to fulfill the aim of this assignment.Contents1.0 Fraud 1.1 DefinitionIn Malaysia, the Contract Act 1950 (herein after written as “CA”) statutorily define fraud into five commitment of acts under Section 17 (a) to (e), thus any offence according to these provisions constitutes fraud in the contract. By virtue of S17(d) and (e) of the “CA” which states that “any other act fitted to deceive” and “any such act or omission as the law specially declares as fraudulent by law”, in other words it falls under the discretionary power of the court to determine whether it constitutes a fraud. In contrast, since UK has an uncodified law, there is no statutory definition for fraud, but it is acceptable to say that it is a false representation made with dishonesty. Knowing that it may be a false or misleading representation, the party intented to make a gain for himself, to cause or expose others to the risk of loss, constitutes a fraud. The landmark case of Derry v Peek & Ors defined fraud as a false representation made knowingly or without belief in its truth or recklessly or carelessly whether it be true or false, which is later been referred to in Malaysia’s case Double Acres Sdn Bhd v Tiarasetia Sdn Bhd covering S17(a), (b) and (c) of the CA. Thus it can be said that definition of fraud given under S17 CA is wider than that under common law as defined in Derry’s case. On the other hand, according to Nevada state of U.S., “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deception or concealment of a material fact known to the person with the intent to deprive another person of his or her rights or property or to otherwise injure another person under Section 42.001 of Nevada State Codes. Another significant difference is that in Nevada state they cover injury to the alleged victim while Malaysia and UK did not cover on this subject-matter.1.2 ApplicationEdgington v Fitzmaurice provides that “the state of a man’s mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion”. This proved a statement of present intention is also recognized as a representation of fact in U.K. where the same is also applicable in Malaysia which can be seen in the case of Datuk Jagindar Singh & Ors v Tara Rajaratnam provided “a statement of intention also involves a representation as the existence of the intention which is itself a present fact”.In Malaysia, as a general rule, mere silence is not fraud unless there exists a duty for the person to speak, or the silence itself equivalent to speech, as provided under the explanation of S17 CA. Correspondingly, the same principle is applicable in U.K. that silence is not fraud unless the person is under the legal duty to disclose and it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It is established in HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd. v Chase Manhattan Bank where Lord Hoffman said that it is a fraud when there exists an obligation to speak but that person does not, to induce the other party to act upon the belief that he did not speak because he had nothing to say. Similarly, in U.S., in order to prove silent fraud, one must prove that the fraudster actually knew about the facts he failed to disclose and the silence had misled the claimant and the fraudster was aware about it.The burden and standard of establishing fraud in Malaysia is similar to both U.K. and U.S. which lies upon the claimant, and the standard of proof for fraud differs in civil and criminal proceedings. In Malaysia, higher requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings, while it only need lower requirement of proof on a balance of probabilities in civil proceedings. In  Lau Hee Teah v Hargill Engineering Sdn Bhd & Anor, it was held that the degree of probability differs accordance with the gravity of the allegation sought to be proved in the case. Due to the nature of a