[Archive]

Posted By: PAS

Peter, you said, "Also, the fact remains that you need to show intent to decieve by preponderance of the evidence. This is higher than the "more likely than not" standard of torts. I just don't think Ryan can meet the standard of proof."

Sorry I cannot let this one go. These are the SAME thing. Preponderance means more likely than not. What you mean to say, I believe, is that you have to prove fraud by CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence which is a higher standard than preponderance.