Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 32 > Issue 1 (1933)
Abstract
Plaintiff purchaser rescinded a contract of sale on the ground of fraud and sued defendants in a deceit action, alleging as damages a payment made on the purchase price and special expense incurred by reason of making the purchase. Held, recovery for both items of damage will be allowed. Copeland v. Reynolds, (N. H. 1933) 164 Atl. 215.
Recommended Citation
EQUITY - ELECTION OF REMEDIES - DECEIT AFTER RESCISSION,
32
Mich. L. Rev.
113
(1933).
Available at:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol32/iss1/19