Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Rescission (when are you likely to obtain rescission (misrepresentation …

- - - - Carbin v Sommerville plaintiff induced into buying house due to representations free of damp and had good roof - false - rectification granted
      - Northern Bank v Charlton (irish) - plaintiff loaned to defendant, defendants claimed entered contract due ti misrepresentations -
        
        CJ O'Higgins Dissenting - just because contract is already executed or transaction completed is no bar to rescission unless restitutio in Integrum
        
        majority - refused as couldn't put party back in original position, granted damage instead
    - - Graham v Boland motorway in backgarden, said no, made in good faith, false, rescission could be granted where plaintiff could establish, misrepresentation inducing plaintiff to act on it (innocent, no intention to mislead plaintiff) (plaintiff - solicitor - no bearing on case)
        
        objective test
- - - - party seeking relief prepared to terms the court considers equitable
      - 3rd parties haven't acquired rights in reliance on contract
      - party seeking relief isn't at fault
- - - - Bell Leaver Brothers
        
        golden handshake for leaving, found out after contract breached and didn't have to pay him, paid him by mistake
        
        contract achieved what it wanted to achieve - mistake does not leave a contract void unless it goes to the root of the contract
      - Associated Japanese Bank v Credit du Nord bought 3 machines from client (didn't exist) contract void neither party knew that the machines didn't exist - contract void - machines fundamental to the contract
    - - hired salvage vessel, further then thought, discovered mistake after 2 hours, didn't cancel until secured another ship
      - contract not void (didn't cancel immediately)
      - no grounds to grant rescission when the contract is valid at common law and enforceable on ordinary principles of contract law
      - Solle isn't good law
      - when contract void
        
        neither party at fault
        
        if unforeseen circumstance make it impossible one party is responsible
        
        no consideration
      - Phang argues primary advantage is the flexibility
    - - Cooper v Phibbs both parties believed lessor could make the lease, mistake of fact, already tenant for life of Salmon Fishery, mutual mistake, valid at common law - but could rescind contract in equity
    - - Grist v Baily contract valid in common law but willing to set aside in equity, - agreed to buy house at reduced price both mistakenly believed subject of protected tenancy,
        
        3 questions
        
        was it fundamental
        
        was defendant at fault
        
        was there a common mistake
      - Great Peace against principle
      - Solle v Butcher
        
        Magee v Penine Insurance
  - - - mistake only about the commercial consequences, courts role not to pull parties out of bad deals