Opinion ID: 1190999
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: tender back.

Text: Tender of the benefits received under an agreement is ordinarily a prerequisite to an action at law for rescission of the agreement. Knaebel v. Heiner, 663 P.2d 551, 554 (Alaska 1983). The trial court concluded that Thorstenson had failed to tender back the benefits of his agreement with ARCO. The court granted ARCO's motion for summary judgment partly on Thorstenson's failure to tender back his special termination allowance. The purpose of the tender back rule is to protect the defendant in an action for rescission: the defendant should not by rescission sacrifice the benefits of the agreement and at the same time not be restored the benefits previously received by the plaintiff. See D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 4.8, at 297 (1973). If Thorstenson is not required to tender his termination allowance and ultimately recovers nothing on his wrongful discharge claim, ARCO may be forced to sacrifice the benefits of the release (by being forced to litigate a wrongful discharge claim) and yet be unable to recover from Thorstenson the price of the release. Thorstenson's offer of a second mortgage on his home did not constitute tender. Tender is an offer to perform a condition or obligation coupled with the present ability of immediate performance, so that were it not for a refusal of cooperation by the party to whom tender is made, the condition would be immediately satisfied. Martindell v. Lake Shore Nat'l Bank, 15 Ill. App.2d 217, 145 N.E.2d 784, 789 (1957), rev'd on other grounds, 15 Ill.2d 272, 154 N.E.2d 683 (1958). The purpose of the tender back rule is not satisfied by such a conditional offer. But the purpose of the rule does not justify the trial court's decision to dismiss Thorstenson's action for failure to tender back the allowance. ARCO will be adequately protected if the trial court grants Thorstenson a reasonable time to tender back his termination allowance with interest. [3] If Thorstenson fails to tender back the allowance, summary judgment on this ground will be appropriate.