Court Opinion

ID: 5447849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-08 18:14:01.275119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:32:15.838142
License: Public Domain

Beatty, C. J., concurring.
“A contract which is not free is nevertheless not absolutely void, but may be rescinded by the parties in the manner prescribed by the chapter on rescission.” (Civ. Code, sec. 1566.)
The contract by which plaintiff parted with his stock was not void, but merely voidable at his option. He had the choice to affirm it or to rescind it, and it appears that he affirmed it by failing to rescind promptly when freed from the undue influence by which his consent was obtained. (Civ. Code, sec. 1691.)
Having affirmed the contract, can he recover damages? He claims that he is entitled to recover the full value of the stock upon the same grounds that sustain an action *380for deceit in case of a contract induced by fraud. But the analogy does not hold. When a contract induced by fraud is affirmed by the injured party, he affirms it (as he has the right to do) according to the terms upon which he was led to believe he was contracting; and what he recovers in an action for deceit is the value of that which he believed he was getting, and the other party knew he expected to get, but which he did not in fact get, or a value which he did not intend to part with, and the other party knew he did not intend to part with. In other words, he affirms the contract as he was induced by the other party to understand it, and he recovers what, according to such understanding, he ought to have or ought not to have parted with. In case of a contract the terms of which are perfectly understood, but are assented to only because of the exercise of duress, menace, or undue influence, the right of the injured party to rescind or affirm exists the same as in cases of fraud. But, as in cases of fraud, an affirmance is necessarily of the terms of the contract as they were understood when the consent was given; and if those terms have been fully complied with, as in this case, there is nothing due upon the contract and no cause of action.
If the plaintiff had promptly given notice of his repudiation of the contract, and offered to pay back the five thousand dollars upon condition that the stock was returned, or even without such offer if the defendant had parted with the stock or its value had depreciated, he might have maintained an action for the stock or its value based upon the rescission, but he cannot recover upon an affirmance of the contract what he never expected to get under the contract.
Temple, J., and Henshaw, J., concurred.