Jennings v. Lee

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the court’s “ample authority” to award a defrauded party not only “the consideration he gave,” but also “any sums that are necessary to restore him to his position prior to the making of the contract”
• setting out the “well-settled” elements of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation
• strict adherence to tender requirement not necessary “where to do so would lead to inequitable results”
• “[A] party seeking to rescind a contract must restore or offer to restore to the other party that which he has received under the contract.”
• court allowed rescission even though return to status quo impossible, because strict application of the rule requiring complete restoration would be inequitable
• “The general rule is that a party seeking to rescind a contract must restore or offer to restore to the other party that which he has received under the contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).