For the equitable doctrine of laches to apply as a matter of course, as we have said, There are two components to laches, both of which must exist before the doctrine will apply. First, there must have been a delay by the plaintiff in bringing his claim, and that delay must have been unreasonable under the circumstances. A related doctrine is equitable estoppel, but for there to be an estoppel, there must have been some detrimental reliance on the part of the party setting up the defense. We do not believe that, on the evidence in this case, it must be inferred, as a matter of law, that the appellees had voluntarily relinquished their right to rescission or, that as a matter of law, their delay in asserting their right to rescission was unreasonable or, that as a matter of law, appellants acted to their detriment in reliance on the delay of appellees in assert- ing their right. On the evidence, the court below in its factual findings could have found either way on these issues and, accord- ingly, there was no error.
Appellants next argue that the findings of fraud are baseless.
We cannot agree. There is substantial evidence to support the findings of fraud and, therefore, those findings are not clearly erroneous. Appellants also argue that the damages below were improperly calculated. With this contention we agree in part. Appellees argue that this amount was awarded to them on the theory that the appellants had tortiously interfered with a business opportunity.