My understanding of the meaning of "fraud" is:
The knowing misrepresentation of a material fact.
Assuming that the contract was silent on the question of using third party painters, it would seem that this scenario would meet the above definition.
Quote:
|
he's not going to tell the client that he had someone else paint it or paint on it.
|
However, the difference between "painting it" and "painting on it" is, as they say, as wide as a church door. If the entire painting was done by someone else it would seem that the client would have cause for some kind of action. If it gets into the realm of "how much" did the third party contribute to the completed painting, then, I would think that the water would become much less clear.
Out here practicing without a license per usual.