For the purpose of an analytical study of the decisions involving rescission for misrepresentation in which the damage problem has been considered, it seems convenient to classify the cases into three groups: (1) where the representee obtains the very thing that he expected to get, but it is worth less than he was led reasonably to expect under the representations made to him; (2) where the representee obtains something substantially different than he was led to expect; and (3) where the representee obtains the very thing that he expected and it is as valuable as he expected it to be, yet there was a material misrepresentation. Harm is suffered in the first two situations. In the first group the harm is in the form of pecuniary damage. This sort of harm can be measured only in terms of money, whether the representee brings his action at law for the decit, or whether he seeks rescission. Rescission and deceit are alternative remedies for harm of this kind. This quite properly looks at the harm and its measurement in its contractual aspect to see if the representee obtained substantially in value the thing he was led to believe he would get. Even if the thing is worth what he gave for it, or worth even more than he gave for it, still he has suffered harm in this sense if it is, in fact, worth less than it was represented.

Included in

Torts Commons