Sophistry is a Type of Common Law Fraud By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D.

, Coif A Reasonable Legal Opinion Perpetual (C)Copyright (2012 C.E.) By Anthony J. Fejfar and Neothomism P.C. (PA) The elements of Common Law Fraud are as follows: 1. An representation is made, typically oral or written 2. That representation is false 3. A Person relies on that representation to his or her or hae detriment 4. The person is damaged by reason of his or her or hae reliance (See generally, Prosser on Torts) Now, an act of sophistry is a form of a fallacious or fraudulent statement or argument and therefore an act of sophistry is a type of Common Law Fraud. In regard to the foregoing, logic is defined as that which is not illogical (L is equal to not not L). That which is illogical is defined as a statement or argument which involves an illogical contradiction, such as attempting to assert that an Apple could exist and be found at the same time and in the same place, and, at the same time, making the assertion that an Apple cannot be found, or is not present, at that same time and place. Similarly, it is illogical to assert in a statement or proof, that the letter A could exist and

be found at the same time and in the same place, and, at the same time, making the assertion that the letter A, cannot be found at the same time and in the same place. Asserting an illogical

contradiction as valid is a form of fraud or sophistry. Examples of fraudulent acts of sophistry includes the fallacies of: 1. Fallacy of shifting ground; 2. Fallacy of Hypocrisy, etc.

With respect to the Common Law Tort of sophistry, please consider the following hypothetical situation: Ron Smith is a political cantidate who tells a morning audience that he is in favor of welfare for the poor. Then, Ron Smith tells an afternoon audience on the same day that he is opposed to welfare for the poor. At least 50 different people listen to the morning audience and speech by Ron Smith, and another 49 people listen to the afternoon audience by Ron Smith. As a result of these people listening to each respective speech, 10 people in each audience rely on Ron Smiths statements and donate $100 each to his political campaign. the foregoing situation is as follows: 1. Jim Brown listened to the morning speech of Ron Smith which was in favor of welfare for the poor, and as a result donated $100 to the Ron Smith political campaign. 2. The morning statement of Ron Smith was the opposite of the afternoon statement, and thus was fraudulent in the sense that by the end of the day, the fraudulent fallacy of shifting ground was used. 3. Jim Brown relied to his detriment inasmuch as he relied on the morning statement on welfare, and based on that reliance he donate $100 to the Ron Smith Political Campaign. 4. Jim Brown was damaged in the amount of $100 in his reliance of the fraudulent morning statement, and thus is entitled to damages in Tort for Common Law fraud from Ron Smith. The foregoing example and cause of action, can be applied by analogy in many other situations. Thus, the Common Law Fraud Tort of sophistry is valid and exists. The Common Law Fraud analysis of