The decision of the Court of Appeal in Halley v. The Law Society  EWCA Civ 97 has the potential to muddy the waters of the law of rescission. It is a fundamental principle that a fraudulent misrepresentation renders a contract voidable at the instance of the representee (Bristol and West Building Society v. Mothew  Ch. 1, 22). Modern authorities suggest that the representee does not have any proprietary interest in property transferred by him pursuant to the contract before rescission (see Bristol and West Building Society v. Mothew  Ch. 1, 22-23; Twinsectra Ltd. v. Yardley  Lloyd's Rep. Bank. 438, 46)
Fraud, Contracts, Attorneys, Business structures, Misrepresentation, Proprietary interest, Bank accounts, Bank fraud, Investment companies
Banking and Finance Law | Bankruptcy Law
Cambridge Law Journal
Cambridge University Press (CUP): HSS Journals
TANG, Hang Wu.
Proprietary relief without rescission. (2004). Cambridge Law Journal. 63, (1), 30-35. Research Collection School Of Law.
Available at: http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2390
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.