In Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 18, the California Supreme Court rejected the proposition that proof of an unfulfilled promise is sufficient to prove fraud, stating: "This is not, and has never been, a correct statement of the law . . . .Rather, 'something more than nonperformance is required to prove the defendant's intent not to perform his promise.' If plaintiff adduces no further evidence of fraudulent intent than proof of nonperformance . . . he will never reach a jury." ( Id. at pp. 30-31.)