749. When non-disclosure involves misrepresentation.

There is another type of reticence or inaction which may, in certain circumstances, and where certain relations exist between the parties, amount to a representation of the non-existence of the matters as to which silence has been observed. Where a person has said something to another, a duty may at once arise to say more, and if he fails to discharge this duty his reticence from that point becomes an implied misrepresentation, although complete silence throughout the transaction would not have amounted to, or have afforded any evidence of, misrepresentation, or even of actionable non-disclosure1. This duty may arise