Spence v Crawford: HL 1939

The vendor of shares sought rescission of a contract for their sale.
Held: He succeeded. Express orders for their return were made.
Lord Wright said: ‘Restoration, however, is essential to the idea of restitution. To take the simplest case, if a plaintiff who has been defrauded seeks to have the contract annulled and his money or property restored to him it would be inequitable if he did not also restore what he had got under the contract from the defendant. Though the defendant has been fraudulent, he must not be robbed, nor must the plaintiff be unjustly enriched, as he would be if he both got back what he had parted with and kept what he had received in return. The purpose of the relief is not punishment, but compensation. The rule is stated as requiring the restoration of both parties to the status quo ante . .’


Lord Wright, Lord Thankerton


[1939] 3 All ER 271, [1939] SC (HL) 52



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: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244662