Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1/14/1999

Baker v. Cambridge Chase, Inc.

Citations

  • 725 A.2d 757
  • 1999 Pa. Super. 9
  • 1999 Pa. Super. LEXIS 9

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the presence of an integration clause is not determinative where fraud is alleged
  • stating that “restitution often goes with rescission, and should not be characterized as damages”
  • excluding parol evidence “[w]here the alleged prior or contemporaneous oral representations or agreement concern a subject which is specifically dealt with within the written contract, and the written contract covers or purports to cover the entire agreement of the parties”
  • “It is well known that the purpose of equitable recission is to return the parties as nearly as possible to their original positions where warranted by the circumstances of the transaction.”
  • “It is well known that the purpose of equitable recission is to return the parties as nearly as possible to their original positions where warranted by the circumstances of the transaction.”
  • “Rescission is an equitable remedy, to be granted only where the parties to a contract can be placed in their former positions with regard to the subject matter of the contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Johnson, Montemuro, Cirillo

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

39 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.