Opinion ID: 1246023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficient basis for rescission of the contract.

Text: Couturier argues that rescission should not have been granted because any breach of the contract was insufficient to warrant rescission. Couturier misunderstands the basis for the court's judgment. The rescission was not granted because of a breach of the contract, but because of fraud. SDCL 53-11-2 provides, in part, that: A party to a contract may rescind the same ... [i]f consent of the party rescinding... was ... obtained through ... fraud ... exercised by ... the party as to whom he rescinds[.] SDCL 53-4-5 defines actual fraud in relation to contracts to include [t]he suggestion as a fact of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true when the suggestion is made by a party to the contract with intent to deceive another party thereto or to induce him to enter into the contract[.] The existence of fraud is a question of fact for the fact finder. SDCL 53-4-5; Tri-State Ref. and Inv. Co., Inc. v. Apaloosa Co., 431 N.W.2d 311, 314 (S.D.1988). The trial court found that Couturier represented the condition of the sewer and electrical systems to be in good working order when he knew the statements were untrue, but made them anyway to deceive Holmes and induce him to enter into the contract. These findings are sufficient for rescission of the contract on the basis of fraud and this court will not reverse the trial court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Smith v. Sponheim, 399 N.W.2d 899 (S.D. 1987). Therefore, Couturier's discussion of a breach of the contract is irrelevant.