Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hudson v. McClaskey

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided August 6, 1992No. 82S01-9208-CV-608Published

1DissentShepard, Chief Justice

For quite a long time, Indiana has held that a buyer of property who discovers a false representation must elect a remedy against the seller: rescission, damages for fraud, or damages for breach of warranty. Reed v. Tioga Manuf. Co. (1879), 66 Ind. 21; Sickels v. Aetna Securities Co. (1942), 220 Ind. 347, 41 N.E.2d 947.

This is not a rule which can be overcome just by drafting a complaint that seeks relief in the alternative, as the majority holds. The purchaser must decide whether he wants to keep the benefit of his bargain *310by asking for damages or to set aside the bargain through rescission.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sickels v. Aetna Securities Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Reed v. Tioga Manufacturing Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1878

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

Powered by the Exa API