Rescission
1Elements and Case Citations
[MM_Access_Decision access='false']
- The character or relationship of the parties;
- The making of the contract;
- The existence of fraud, mutual mistake, false representation, impossibility of performance, or other ground for rescission or cancellation;
- Plaintiff has rescinded the contract and notified defendant of such rescission;
- If the plaintiff has received benefits from the contract, the plaintiff should further allege an offer to restore those benefits to the defendant, if restoration is possible; and
- Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:
- The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
- The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
- The statute of limitations; and
- The defenses to this cause of action.
Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide
Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!
[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']- The character or relationship of the parties;
- The making of the contract;
- The existence of fraud, mutual mistake, false representation, impossibility of performance, or other ground for rescission or cancellation;
- Plaintiff has rescinded the contract and notified defendant of such rescission;
- If the plaintiff has received benefits from the contract, the plaintiff should further allege an offer to restore those benefits to the defendant, if restoration is possible; and
- Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
FLORIDA STATE COURTS
Supreme Court: E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Rousseff, 537 So.2d 978, 980 (Fla. 1989).
Second District: Saenz v. Rigau & Rigau, P.A., 549 So.2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Fourth District: Billian v. Mobil Corp., 710 So.2d 984, 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Fifth District: Townsend v. Morton, 36 So.3d 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS
Eleventh Circuit: Barber v. America’s Wholesale Lender, 542 F. App’x. 832, 836 (11th Cir. 2013); Rousseff v. E.F. Hutton Co., 867 F.2d 1281, 1285 (11th Cir. 1989).
Southern District: Reinsurance Partners Investments v. Maite, LLC, No. 24-22563-CIV, 2024 WL 5221198, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 26, 2024); Spofford v. Beta LP / Alpha Tr., 2023 WL 3778252, *7 (S.D. Fla. May 8, 2023); N.A.S. v. Morada-Haute Furniture Boutique LLC, 2021 WL 5547626, *5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2021); Argos Glob. Partner Servs., LLC v. Ciuchini, 446 F. Supp. 3d 1073, 1093 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2020).
Middle District: Coombs v. Mitchell, No. 5:23-CV-70-JA-PRL, 2024 WL 4115550, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 6, 2024); Perna v. Am. Campus Cmtys, Inc., 2022 WL 1689083, *3-5 (M.D. Fla. May 26, 2022); Longo v. Campus Advantage, Inc., 2022 WL 605304, *3-6 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2022); Lawrence v. FPA Villa Del Lago, LLC, 2022 WL 344634, *4-6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2022).
Northern District: JDI Holdings, LLC v. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 732 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1231 (N.D. Fla. 2010).
FLORIDA STATUTES
§ 672.608, Fla. Stat.
2 Defenses to Claim for Rescission
(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.
(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(l), Fla. Stat. (four years).
(3) Courts should not allow claims for rescission when plaintiff may pursue action at law for breach of warranty or contract. Central Fla. Antenna Serv., Inc. v. A.M. Crabtree, 503 So.2d 1351, 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
(4) Rescission is available only for fraud, accident or mistake. Royal v. Parado, 462 So. 2d 849, 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); AVVA-BC, LLC v. Amiel, 25 So.3d 7, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); but see Hibiscus Ass’n, Ltd., v. Bd. of Tr., 50 F.3d 908, 916 (11th Cir. 1995) (Florida law also allows rescission for breach of dependent covenant).
(5) Rescission is generally not available when the parties cannot return to positions occupied prior to execution of contract Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. v. Dietz, 785 F. Supp. 970, 972 (M.D. Fla. 1992). But see Bass v. Farish, 616 So.2d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (noting an exception to the general rule when the inability of one party to restore to the status quo is caused by the fraud of the other party); Bland v. Freightliner LLC, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1208-09 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (stating that a court may grant rescission, despite the impossibility of restoration to the status quo, if the equities between the parties can be balanced).