Clarke v Dickson: 1858

The plaintiff brought his claim for money had and received by the purchaser of shares in a company. He said that he had been induced to purchase the shares by a fraudulent misrepresentation but he had failed in his action at common law.
Held: Erle J: ‘the plaintiff cannot avoid the contract under which he took the shares, because he cannot restore them in the same state as when he took them.’ Crompton J: ‘when once it is settled that a contract induced by fraud is not void, but voidable at the option of the party defrauded, it seems to me to follow that, when that party exercises his option to rescind the contract, he must be in a state to rescind it; that is, he must be in such a situation as to be able to put the parties into their original state before the contract . . . The plaintiff must rescind in toto or not at all; he cannot both keep the shares and recover the whole price. That is founded on the plainest principles of justice. If he cannot return the article he must keep it, and sue for his real damage in an action on the deceit.’

Judges:

Crompton J, Erle J

Citations:

(1858) EL BL and EL 148

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHalpern and Another v Halpern and others ComC 4-Jul-2006
The court considered whether a party can avoid a contract procured by duress in circumstances where he cannot offer the other party substantial restitutio in integrum.
Held: Unless the claimant could offer counter-restitution, the remedy of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Contract

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.244659