false, (3) that the speaker knew was false at the time it was made, (4) that was made with the intention of being acted upon, (6) that the party acted in reliance, and (6) that injury was suffered. Trenholm v. Ratcliff, 646 S.W.2d 927, 930 (Tex.1983). That Transport’s agents may have placed a potential value on Faircloth’s claim above $250,000 and that maybe Transport told Faircloth that the $250,000 was a “great deal, that was — that was really top — or top dollar;” is no evidence of a material representation. Transport, an adverse party in the course of negotiation, had no duty to disclose the maximum amount it would pay to settle this claim any more than Faircloth was required to disclose the lowest amount she was willing to accept. See Mileski v. Dorey, 559 A.2d 339, 340 (Me. 1989) (<HOLDING>). Regardless, the dissent concedes that general
holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to an action for recision on contract for sale of real property based on fraud when they had treated contract as valid for more than a year after discovering the fraud holding that purchaser who paid more to buy than what seller would have actually sold for has no claim for fraud holding that an alien who has failed the wellfounded fear test for asylum will necessarily fail the more stringent more likely than not test for withholding of removal holding that when contribution is brought as a separate cause of action rather than through thirdparty practice the plaintiff ointtortfeasor must allege that it has paid more than its fair share of the liability