In summary, this Court finds that the Debtor would often say what he thought he needed to say to first induce the Dunlops to enter into the Contract and then to obtain payments from them, without regard -- or at least with a reckless disregard -- for the truth. E.g., Purington and Barnaby (by the Debtor) and In re Ferguson, 222 B.R. 576 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1998) and In re Carle, 2010 WL 5394793 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2010) (by the Plaintiffs). D. Justifiable Reliance

This was not merely a sales job, but rather a deception which harmed the Plaintiff.Green v. Carle (In re Carle),2010 WL 5394793, at *7 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2010). This case is factually similar to Carle.

The parties do not dispute the writing requirement. Under § 523(a)(2)(A), a representation made by a debtor is a false pretense or false representation if the it was: (1) a knowing and fraudulent falsehood; (2) describing past or current facts; (3) that was relied upon by the other party. AT&T Universal Card Servs. v. Mercer (In re Mercer), 246 F.3d 391, 403 (5th Cir. 2001); RecoverEdge L.P. v. Pentecost, 44 F.3d 1284, 1292-93 (5th Cir. 1995); In re Futch, 2011 WL 576071, at *17; Green v. Carle (In re Carle), Adv. No. 09-5055, 2010 WL 5394793, *6 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2010). In contrast with false pretense or false representation, a party objecting to discharge of a debt under § 523(a)(2)(A) for actual fraud must demonstrate that: (1) that the debtor made representations; (2) that the debtor knew the representations were false at the time they were made; (3) that the representations were made with the intention and purpose to deceive the creditor; (4) that the creditor actually and justifiably relied on the representations; and (5) that the creditor sustained a loss as a proximate result of its reliance.

4. Comparison to Carle.Green v. Carle ( In re Carle ), 2010 WL 5394793 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2010), which was recently decided by this Court, has some similarities to this case. In Carle, the debtor ("Carle") and plaintiff, Barbara Green ("Green"), entered into a contract for the construction of Green's new home.

Lastly, there was no indication that the debtor's failure to renew his license as a general contractor was the proximate cause of the loss sustained by the plaintiffs, the fourth Rembert requirement. This situation is distinct from that in which a contractor lies about his qualifications in order to induce the owner to enter into a contract with him. Cf. Green v. Carle (In re Carle), No. 09-5055, 2010 WL 5394793 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2010) (finding that statements made by an inexperienced contractor who lied about his qualifications were material misrepresentations that justified excepting the debt from discharge). The debtor had been a licensed contractor for a number of years and according to his estimation had built 40 to 50 houses.