Fraudulent inducement—also known as fraud in the inducement—is a tort (wrongful act) claim or cause of action recognized in some states for fraud that occurs when one party to a contract intentionally misrepresents a material fact—usually regarding the risks, duties, or obligations involved—that another party to the contract reasonably relies on, causing the second party to enter into a contract it would not have agreed to if not for the fraudulent representation, and causing harm (damages or losses) to the party who reasonably relied on the misrepresentation.

Because fraudulent inducement combines elements of contract and tort law it is sometimes referred to as a "contort" claim or cause of action. In states that recognize a fraudulent inducement cause of action, the plaintiff may file a lawsuit and recover damages.

But a party who made an intentional misrepresentation may avoid liability if the other party contractually disclaimed any reliance on the first party’s fraudulent representations (a disclaimer of reliance provision in the contract). Whether a party is liable in any particular case depends on the contract’s language and the totality of the surrounding circumstances.

In Minnesota, fraudulent inducement is recognized as a cause of action when one party to a contract intentionally misrepresents a material fact, leading another party to enter into the contract based on that misrepresentation. The misrepresented fact must be one that the defrauded party reasonably relied upon, and it must result in harm or loss to that party. This cause of action is a blend of contract and tort law, sometimes referred to as a 'contort' claim. To establish a claim for fraudulent inducement in Minnesota, the plaintiff must typically prove that the defendant made a false representation of a past or present material fact, knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard for its truth, intending to induce the plaintiff to act, and causing the plaintiff to justifiably rely on the representation to their detriment. However, the presence of a disclaimer of reliance provision in a contract may affect the outcome of a fraudulent inducement claim. The enforceability of such disclaimers is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering the contract's language and the totality of the circumstances surrounding the transaction.