Skip to main content
· 4/16/1917

Wright v. Bristol Patent Leather Co.

Citations

  • 257 Pa. 552
  • 101 A. 844
  • 1917 Pa. LEXIS 778

Syllabus

<p>Gontracts — Rescission—Notice—Insufficient rescission.</p> <p>1. To be effective, a notice for the rescission or termination of a contract must be clear and unambiguous, conveying an unquestionable purpose to insist on the rescission. Where the evidence is not clear .as to whether the party has rescinded the contract or not he will be deemed not to have done so.</p> <p>2. Where a contract prescribed the mode in which the right of rescission shall be exercised, or provides that certain specified acts shall be done as a condition to the right to rescind, it must be strictly followed, and the party cannot rescind in any other mode nor without complying with the conditions.</p> <p>3. Where a rescission is made on the ground of fraud, failure of consideration, or other equitable reason, the consideration for the property must be returned. Upon discovery of the fraud the injured party must rescind with reasonable promptness and must tender a return of the property or security-which was the subject-matter of the contract.</p> <p>4. In an action to recover the balance due upon installment payments under a contract for the sale of a secret formula for the preparation of patent leather, it appeared that the contract provided that “the party of the first part shall have the right at any time after the first payment has been' made, to discontinue the use of such formula or process, and method of treatment and upon said discontinuance, notice of which has been sent by the party of the first part to the party of the second part by registered mail to the last known address of the party of the second part, together with the return of said formula, the party of the first part shall not be required to make any further payments and all liability on the part of the party of the first part of any kind whatsoever under this contract shall cease and terminate absolutely.” The contract was dated September 1, 1913, and defendant failed to return the paper containing the formula by regist

Judges: Brown, Frazer, Moschzisker, Stewart, Walling

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.