Fraud in factum, in execution or in the inception differs from promissory fraud, which is a false promise. Fraud in execution occurs when the defendant causes the plaintiff to execute a contract that has materially different terms from those on which the parties orally agreed. To allege a claim for fraud in execution, the plaintiff must allege facts showing the defendant switched terms and that plaintiff was reasonably ignorant of that fact when he signed the contract. Here, plaintiff met those requirements, pleading that defendants substituted a written agreement with substantially different terms than the one to which the parties had previously agreed orally, and that he didn’t realize that fact because he does not read English well and defendant led him to believe the contract signed was the same as the one previously agreed. Plaintiff also plead an actionable claim for breach of the purchase agreement (but not the earlier non-binding letter of intent) in this sale-and-lease-back transaction by changing thus changing the lease’s terms. Finally, the complaint alleged an elder financial abuse claim arising from the same facts under Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.30(a) for taking an elder’s property with intent to defraud–a claim that does not require allegation of the elder’s mental incompetence.