Legal Opinion · Concurrence

City of Aberdeen v. Rich

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 2, 2001No. NonePublished

1ConcurrenceAmundson, Justice

[¶ 36.] I agree with the majority that the trial court must determine the rights of all parties, now that this second land sale contract is held void. The effect of voiding this contract is to place the parties back in their original position. Cf. Wolken v. Wade, 406 N.W.2d 720 (S.D.1987). Once a court declares a contract void, it is treated as if it is rescinded.

The right to rescind must be exercised in toto, allowing the contract to stand or fall as a whole.... [T]he effect of rescission of a contract is to put the parties back in the same position they were in prior to the making of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. BankWest, N.A. v. GrosecloseSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Ford v. HoferSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Wolken v. WadeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Holden v. DuBoisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API