Opinion ID: 1244243
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiffs elected their remedy.

Text: If a buyer has been defrauded, he has an election of remedies available to him. He can either rescind the contract, restore what he received and recover back what he paid, or he may affirm the agreement and sue for monetary damages. Holmes v. Couturier, 452 N.W.2d 135, 137 (S.D.1990). Essentially, the complaining party has the right to a choice or election of remedies. O'Connor v. King, 479 N.W.2d 162 (S.D.1991). This principle of law is deeply-rooted in this state by precedent dating back nearly one hundred years to Davis v. Tubbs, 7 S.D. 488, 64 N.W. 534 (1895). Election of remedies is not simply a rule of procedure; rather, it is based upon substantive law, birthed in the existence of contracts and the rights derived from those contracts. As we stated in S & S Trucking v. Whitewood Motors, Inc., 346 N.W.2d 297, 301 (S.D.1984): It is a well-recognized rule of contract law that once a party rescinds a contract, as Whitewood did here by its termination, the contract is extinguished and there is no longer any right of recovery under the contract provisions. Recently, in Tucek v. Mueller, 511 N.W.2d 832 (S.D.1994), Tucek was entitled to sue for damages for fraud and deceit; Tucek also had the right to sue for rescission. In other words, she had the right to the remedy of her choice; however, the trial court deprived Tucek of that choice and restricted her remedy to rescission. We reversed. Herein, when Plaintiffs voluntarily informed Fisher by the December 27 letter that they were acting to rescind that certain Agreement dated the 21st day of May, 1990, Plaintiffs unequivocally elected their remedy. They reaffirmed their election of rescission in paragraph XV of their Complaint, stating that they did thereby rescind said agreement by letter dated December 27, 1990. Once elected, Plaintiffs were not entitled to sue under alternative theories of fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. From Davis to Tucek, dust has not had time to settle on this oft-used principle. It has lived on. The trial court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs' additional tort claims.