This article maintains that, though the principle is correct, many judges have allowed the introduction of evidence which contradicts the written terms of the contract, but does not prove a case of legal fraud. There are several categories of proper fraudulent inducement claims involving fiduciary relationships, fraud in the factum, meaning of words known only to one party, and extrinsic fraud which is detailed in this article. The second section of the article deals with the Ohio Supreme Court Marion Production Credit Association decision; the author analyzes it in terms of misleading presentations from the lawyers and the context in which the word fraud was used. The discussion moves on to past errors in which the word fraud was used improperly and the legal distinctions between wrongs and frauds. 46 notes