Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Fisher v. Jones

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided September 30, 1991No. 90-271Published

1Concurrence

Robert S. Lindsey, Special Justice.

I concur in the denial of specific performance (E-89-1592). It is only in denying rescission that I would reverse and remand (E-89-1524).

The Chancellor was of the opinion that Fisher had not met the burden of proof so as to entitle him to restitution, and concluded that the circumstances had been so altered by part execution that the parties could not even be closely restored to status quo so that it was impossible to grant rescission.

As a general rule, restoration of the status quo is a prerequisite to rescission. Absolute and literal restoration is not…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Herrick v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
  2. Afflick v. LambertSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
  3. Elkins v. AlicevilleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  4. Stanford v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
  5. Desha's Exrs. v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1856

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API