References: (1955) 94 CLR 216, [1955] HCA 64, [1955] ALR 1047
Links: Austlii
Coram: Dixon CJ, Webb, Fullagar, Kitto and Taylor JJ
Ratio: (High Court of Australia) The remedy of rescission is only available if the parties can be returned to their respective positions before the contract was made. Dixon CJ said: ‘It is not that equity asserts a power by its decree to avoid a contract which the defrauded party himself has no right to disaffirm, and to revest property the title to which the party cannot affect. Rescission from misrepresentation is always the act of the party himself . . The function of a court in which proceedings for rescission are taken is to adjudicate upon the validity of a purported disaffirmance as an act avoiding the transaction ab inito, and, if it is valid, to give effect to it and make appropriate consequential orders . . The difference between the legal and the equitable rules on the subject simply was that equity, having means which the common law lacked to ascertain and provide for the adjustments necessary to be made between the parties in cases where a simple handing back of property or repayment of money would not put them in as good a position as before they entered into their transaction, was able to see the possibility of restitutio in integrum, and therefore to concede the right of a defrauded party to rescind, in a much wider variety of cases than those which the common law could recognize as admitting of rescission.’ and
‘When a contract is rescinded by reason of a recognised vitiating factor, the contract, as just noted, is set aside from the beginning. In such a case there can be no claim for damages for breach of contract, because in such situations there is no contract. Equally, if a claim is made by the victim for damages for breach of contract, there can be no rescission of the contract as the victim has by suing for breach clearly elected not to rescind.’
This case is cited by:
- Approved – O’Sullivan v Management Agency and Music Limited CA ([1985] QB 428, (1984) 2 IPR 499, [1984] 3 WLR 448, [1985] 3 All ER 351)
The claimant alleged undue influence. As a young singer he had entered into a management agreement with the defendant which he said were prejudicial and unfair. The defendant argued that the ‘doctrine of restitutio in integrum applied only to the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 29-Aug-16
Ref: 470685