1. Why was James arguing on appeal that intent to deceive was not a requirement for fraud? Given that Waldrop had told James that he and Marguerite were married, when in fact they weren’t, couldn’t intent to deceive be inferred? Discuss.

2. Recall from Chapter 1 that there are two types of remedies: equitable remedies and remedies at law. Is rescission an equitable remedy or a remedy at law? Why is rescission an appropriate remedy in this case?

On December 16, 2005, James M. Eaton, Jr., and Marguerite Eaton [his mother] filed a complaint against [Bobby Joe] Waldrop alleging, among other things, that Waldrop had fraudulently induced James to deed certain property situated in Jefferson County (“the property”) to Waldrop and Marguerite, jointly with a right of survivorship, and that Waldrop had subsequently fraudulently induced Marguerite to transfer her interest.