Comments on the refusal of the English courts to recognise the existence of a remedy of partial rescission, suggesting that in certain restricted instances justification exists for the grant of such a remedy. Considers the nature of the remedy of rescission under English law, the English courts' approach towards partial rescission and the nature and scope of the discretions available to the courts, noting the decisions in TSB Bank Plc v Camfield and De Molestina v Ponton. Reviews the historical origins of the remedy of rescission, including the distinction between fraudulent and non fraudulent misrepresentation and the origins of the so called concurrent and auxiliary equitable jurisdictions. Compares the approach of the Australian courts and highlights examples of recognition of partial rescission under international law.
|Number of pages||27|
|Journal||Law Quarterly Review|
|Publication status||Published - 2005|
- government regulation
- equitable remedies