This is an extract of our Spence V. Crawford document, which we sell as part of our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
SPENCE V. CRAWFORD
FACTS My Lords, the appellant is the pursuer in this action, by which he seeks reduction of the contract constituted by the respondent's offer dated 18 August 1931, and the appellant's acceptance thereof, dated 27 August 1931, on the ground that his acceptance was induced by false and fraudulent misrepresentations by the respondent. The offer and acceptance which constituted the contract under reduction are as follow. First, the offer is in the following terms: I hereby offer you the sum of PS2,250 in full satisfaction of your holding in the Glencairn Metals, Ltd., and of any claims or interest which you may have therein, and that on the following terms and conditions:-1. That the purchase price shall include 2,925 shares valued at PS1,350, in said company, and a loan of PS900 granted by you to the company. Glencairn Metals Ltd, is a private company formed in 1919 with a capital of PS6,000 in PS1 shares, 5,850 of which shares were issued, and, at the date of the contract in August 1931. The appellant's case is that he was induced to sell his shares and to sever his connection with the company by the respondent's fraudulent misrepresentations. He does not challenge the adequacy of the consideration, but maintains that he would not have parted with his shares or his interest in the company but for these misrepresentations. In my opinion, that is clearly established, and, if so, there would remain only the question as to whether restitutio in integrum is possible in the circumstances. HOLDING Appellant is entitled to rescind the contract subject restitutio integrum In my opinion, the inevitable inference from the above facts and circumstances is that the fraud was carried out in the sole interest of the respondent and at his instigation, as well as with his knowledge. I am therefore of opinion, in agreement with Lord Moncrieff and Lord Carmont, that the appellant is entitled to have the contract reduced, provided he is able to effect restitutio in integrum, which will fall to be next considered. Appellant's undertaking
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes.