For practical purposes, I agree that fraud is a more broad term encompassing intentional misrepresentation. At least three state courts have used the terms “intentional misrepresentation” and “fraud” synonymously. If this is the case, then the hurdle is to show that this treatment is incorrect. This seeming redundancy may come from the varying use of these terms throughout jurisdictions.

However, there are two points in how the elements of an intentional misrepresentation differ from fraud. First, “[i]n general, the recipient of a misrepresentation need not show that he has actually been harmed by relying on it in order to avoid the contract.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Sec. 164, cmt. c. In contrast, fraud requires a showing of actual harm. Second, a misrepresentation may be non-fraudulent when the maker has made an “honest mistake.” Id. at Sec. 162, cmt. c. Then, the argument is whether such a mistake was “intentional,” and it may very well be found to be an innocent misrepresentation instead of an intentional misrepresentation. These distinctions may provide a buyer enough of an advantage to warrant the inclusion of “intentional misrepresentation.”

I seem to recall that many jurisdictions have a reliance component to a fraud claim (apart from having to prove causation, which usually requires reliance). Maybe the author perceived fraud and intentional misrepresentation as overlapping sets.

Chris