Lesson 158. Rescission | AQA A-Level Law
For Specification 7162
AQA A-Level Law | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 40 minutes
Rescission is an equitable remedy which seeks to undo a contract and return the parties to their pre-contractual positions. It is particularly important in cases involving misrepresentation and economic duress, but it is not a general expression for bringing a contract to an end following breach. AQA expressly requires students to understand rescission as one of the equitable remedies in contract law. These Rescission A-Level Law revision notes explain its effect, its discretionary nature, the requirement of restitutio in integrum, the circumstances which may prevent it and its crucial distinction from termination for breach [Lesson 159. Termination for breach].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain rescission as an equitable contractual remedy.
Explain the effect of rescission upon a contract.
Explain the requirement of restoring the parties to their pre-contractual positions.
Identify circumstances which may prevent rescission.
Apply rescission to cases involving misrepresentation and economic duress.
Distinguish rescission from termination following a repudiatory breach.
Revision Notes 📚
What is rescission?
Rescission is an equitable remedy which may allow a contract to be set aside.
AQA examiner reports repeatedly describe rescission as a remedy which, if awarded, treats the contract as void from the outset, so that it is as if the contract had never been made.
The basic effect can be expressed as:
grounds for rescission + equitable remedy awarded → contract treated as void from the outset → parties restored to their original positions
Rescission is particularly relevant where a contract has been affected by:
misrepresentation
economic duress
AQA's 2024 and 2025 examiner reports expressly identify both as situations in which rescission may be available.
Rescission is an equitable remedy
The AQA specification places rescission alongside specific performance as an equitable remedy.
This means rescission is discretionary.
The claimant cannot simply say:
"I have established misrepresentation, so the contract automatically disappears."
Instead, the court must decide whether rescission should be awarded.
AQA's 2022 examiner report tested this point directly. A fraudulent misrepresentation does not immediately bring the contract to an end because rescission lies within the discretion of the court and may be unavailable for several reasons.
So use cautious language:
"The claimant may seek rescission."
not:
"The contract is automatically rescinded."
The effect of rescission
If rescission is awarded, the contract is treated as void ab initio.
Void ab initio means void from the beginning.
AQA examiner reports explain this as treating the position as though the contract had never been made.
This retrospective effect distinguishes rescission from termination following breach.
Example
Aisha pays Ben £1,000 for an item after being induced by an actionable misrepresentation.
If rescission is awarded:
Aisha returns the item
Ben returns the £1,000
the parties are returned, as far as possible, to their positions before the contract
The objective is therefore restoration rather than compensation for expectation loss.
Restitutio in integrum
The principle of restoring both parties to their original positions is known as restitutio in integrum.
AQA's 2023 examiner report describes rescission as requiring full restitutio in integrum for both parties.
In student-friendly terms:
Each party should give back what they received under the contract.
Example
Cara pays Dylan £500 for a watch.
The contract was induced by an actionable misrepresentation.
If rescission is awarded:
Cara returns the watch
Dylan returns the £500
The parties are therefore restored to the positions they occupied before making the contract.
AQA's 2021 multiple-choice paper directly stated that rescission requires parties to be restored to their pre-contractual positions.
Rescission is not primarily about expectation loss
Rescission should be distinguished from compensatory damages.
Damages ask:
What financial position would the claimant have occupied if the contract had been properly performed?
Rescission asks:
Can the contract be undone and the parties returned to their pre-contractual positions?
This distinction matters because AQA examiner reports have repeatedly identified confusion between:
compensating for breach
restoring the parties through rescission
For the rules governing damages, return to Compensatory damages and recoverable loss [Lesson 154. Compensatory damages and recoverable loss].
Rescission following misrepresentation
Misrepresentation is one of the clearest situations in which rescission may arise.
You studied the relationship between classification and remedy in:
Misrepresentation: nature [Lesson 146. Misrepresentation: nature]
Types of misrepresentation [Lesson 147. Types of misrepresentation]
Remedies for misrepresentation [Lesson 148. Remedies for misrepresentation]
AQA's assessment materials recognise rescission as available in principle for:
fraudulent misrepresentation
negligent misrepresentation
innocent misrepresentation
although the associated availability of damages differs between the classifications.
For this lesson, the important point is the nature and effect of rescission itself.
The 2023 shirt example
AQA's 2023 examination provides a particularly clear example.
Ezra sold Fred a shirt for £80 after making an actionable misrepresentation about the material from which it was made.
AQA explained that rescission was likely to be the most direct practical remedy because Fred simply wanted:
to give the shirt back
to recover his £80
The effect would be:
Fred → returns shirt
Ezra → returns £80
The examiner report described this as treating the contract as void ab initio and achieving restitutio in integrum.
This is an excellent model of what rescission looks like in practice.
Why rescission was suitable for Fred
Fred was not primarily seeking a payment representing lost expectation or profit.
His practical objective was much simpler:
"I want to undo the transaction."
Rescission directly addresses that objective.
AQA's 2023 mark scheme therefore identified rescission as Fred's primary remedy, with recovery of the £80 occurring when he returned the shirt.
📌 Exam technique: Think about what the claimant actually wants.
If they want to return what they bought and recover what they paid following misrepresentation, rescission may be particularly relevant.
Rescission following economic duress
Rescission may also be relevant where a contractual agreement was obtained by economic duress.
AQA's examiner reports specifically identify economic duress as another situation where the equitable remedy may be awarded.
You studied the substantive rules in Economic duress [Lesson 149. Economic duress].
The important remedial sequence is:
economic duress established → agreement potentially voidable → victim may seek rescission
The remedy remains equitable and discretionary.
Therefore, even where economic duress is established, do not say:
"The contract automatically ends."
Instead:
"The victim may seek rescission."
Rescission is not automatic
This is one of the strongest themes in the AQA examiner reports.
The 2024 examiner report found that many students recognised rescission as a remedy for misrepresentation but very few went further and explained:
that the remedy is discretionary
that restitutio in integrum must be possible
that barriers may prevent rescission
A complete rescission answer should therefore normally contain all three stages:
Is there a legal basis for rescission?
Can the parties be restored?
Is any bar to rescission present?
Bars to rescission
Even where a legal basis for rescission exists, the remedy may be lost or refused.
AQA's 2022 examiner report identifies four important reasons:
impossibility of returning the parties to their pre-contractual positions
affirmation
lapse of time
acquisition of rights by a third party
These are the central barriers students should be able to recognise and apply.
Bar 1: restoration is impossible
Because rescission seeks to restore the parties to their original positions, there must be a practical possibility of achieving restitutio in integrum.
AQA's 2025 examiner report states that rescission will be unavailable unless both parties can be restored to their original positions.
Example
Ella buys an item from Faisal after an actionable misrepresentation.
Before seeking rescission, the item is destroyed so that it cannot be returned.
The court would need to consider whether the parties can still be restored to their pre-contractual positions.
If restoration is impossible, rescission may be unavailable.
The key examination question is:
Can both parties substantially give back what they received?
Restoring both parties matters
Do not focus only on the claimant.
Rescission is concerned with restoring both parties.
In the 2023 shirt scenario:
Fred recovered the £80
Ezra recovered the shirt
AQA expressly described the requirement as full restitutio in integrum for both parties.
So a good answer should not merely say:
"Fred gets his money back."
It should explain the corresponding restoration:
"Fred returns the shirt and recovers the £80."
Bar 2: affirmation
Rescission may be lost where the innocent party affirms the contract.
Affirmation means that, after becoming aware of the relevant problem, the innocent party chooses to continue with the contract rather than seek to undo it.
Example
Grace buys equipment from Haris after a misrepresentation.
Grace discovers the truth but tells Haris:
"I know the statement was false, but I have decided to keep the equipment and continue with the agreement."
Her conduct may amount to affirmation.
If so, she may lose the ability to rescind later.
AQA expressly identifies affirmation as a possible reason for rescission being lost.
Knowledge matters when considering affirmation
In a scenario, pay careful attention to when the claimant discovers the relevant facts.
Someone cannot meaningfully choose to continue with knowledge of a misrepresentation if they do not yet know it occurred.
A useful timeline is therefore:
contract made
claimant discovers misrepresentation or duress issue
claimant's conduct after discovery
later attempt to rescind
If the claimant knowingly chooses to continue, affirmation may become relevant.
Bar 3: lapse of time
Rescission may be defeated by delay or lapse of time.
AQA tested this specifically in the 2025 Paper 3A multiple-choice question.
The statement that rescission may not be awarded for fraudulent misrepresentation where there has been delay in claiming it was treated as correct.
The 2025 examiner report similarly states that rescission may be defeated by an issue such as delay.
Example
Isla discovers an actionable misrepresentation but waits for a significant period before attempting to undo the contract.
The delay may make rescission unavailable.
📌 Exam point: Fraud does not make rescission automatic. The equitable restrictions still matter.
Bar 4: third-party rights
AQA's 2022 examiner report also identifies the acquisition of rights by a third party as a potential barrier to rescission.
Example
Jack buys an item from Keira after a misrepresentation.
Before Jack discovers the truth, he transfers the item to an innocent third party who acquires rights in it.
The later attempt to undo the original transaction could interfere with those third-party rights.
Rescission may therefore be unavailable.
For AQA purposes, the important point is to spot that a third party has acquired rights and recognise this as a possible bar.
Bars to rescission summarised
Potential bar | Effect |
Restoration impossible | Rescission may fail because the parties cannot be returned to their pre-contractual positions. |
Affirmation | The claimant has chosen to continue with the contract after becoming aware of the problem. |
Lapse of time | Excessive delay may make the equitable remedy unavailable. |
Third-party rights | Rescission may be prevented where rights acquired by a third party would be affected. |
A strong scenario answer applies only the barriers actually raised by the facts.
Do not mechanically list all four if only one is relevant.
Rescission and fraudulent misrepresentation
Fraudulent misrepresentation can give rise to both:
rescission
damages
However, rescission remains subject to its equitable restrictions.
AQA's 2022 examiner report specifically rejected the proposition that fraudulent misrepresentation immediately ends the contract.
Example
Lara fraudulently induces Malik to buy a watch.
Malik discovers the fraud immediately, still has the watch unchanged and asks to return it.
There is a strong argument for rescission because:
fraudulent misrepresentation provides a basis for the remedy
Malik acts promptly
the watch can be returned
there is no evidence of affirmation
no third-party rights have arisen
Malik may also have a damages claim because the misrepresentation was fraudulent.
Rescission and negligent misrepresentation
AQA's 2025 examination directly confirmed that damages are not the only remedy for negligent misrepresentation.
Rescission may also be available.
Example
Nadia buys goods after relying upon Oliver's negligent misrepresentation.
She discovers the truth the next day and can return the goods.
Rescission may be an appropriate remedy because it can restore the parties to their original positions.
The availability of damages as another remedy does not remove rescission.
Rescission and innocent misrepresentation
Rescission is also relevant to innocent misrepresentation.
In the 2023 shirt scenario, AQA described rescission as the most direct remedy even where the misrepresentation might have been innocent rather than negligent.
The detailed distinction between rescission and damages in lieu was covered in Remedies for misrepresentation [Lesson 148. Remedies for misrepresentation].
For this lesson, the important point is:
The absence of fraud does not prevent rescission from being considered.
Rescission and damages in lieu
AQA examiner materials recognise that, in appropriate non-fraudulent misrepresentation cases, the court may consider damages in lieu of rescission.
This means damages are awarded instead of rescinding the contract.
AQA's 2023 and 2024 examiner reports mention the court's discretion to award damages in lieu of rescission in negligent and innocent misrepresentation cases.This does not alter the definition of rescission.
It shows that the court may sometimes decide that rescinding the contract is not the appropriate outcome.
Rescission is not termination for breach
This distinction is absolutely essential for AQA.
Examiner reports in 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 all warn students not to use rescission as a universal word for ending a contract following breach.The two legal mechanisms operate differently.
Rescission
equitable remedy
discretionary
associated with matters such as misrepresentation and economic duress
if awarded, treats the contract as void from the outset
seeks to restore the parties to their pre-contractual positions
Termination following repudiatory breach
common law consequence of sufficiently serious breach
innocent party may elect to treat the contract as at an end
termination operates from the relevant election
rights and obligations existing before termination are not simply erased
You will study the latter fully in Termination for breach [Lesson 159. Termination for breach].
Rescission and termination compared
Rescission | Termination for breach |
Equitable remedy | Common law response to repudiatory breach |
Discretionary | Innocent party may acquire an election to terminate |
Relevant to matters such as misrepresentation and economic duress | Relevant to sufficiently serious contractual breach |
Treats contract as void from the outset | Ends future obligations from termination |
Requires restoration of parties | Does not attempt to erase the contract retrospectively |
May be prevented by equitable barriers | Governed by the rules on repudiatory breach and election |
AQA repeatedly highlights this distinction because students continue to confuse the two.
The 2025 breach warning
The 2025 examiner report identified a particularly common mistake.
Students correctly identified a repudiatory breach but then said that the remedy was rescission, returning the parties to their positions before the contract was made.
AQA described this as mistaken.
The correct approach to repudiatory breach is that the innocent party may elect to treat the contract as at an end, with termination operating from the relevant point.
Therefore:
misrepresentation/economic duress → consider rescission
repudiatory breach → consider termination
Do not swap the terminology.
Rescission is not frustration
Rescission should also be distinguished from frustration [Lesson 153. Frustration].
Where frustration is established:
the contract is discharged because of a qualifying supervening event
the financial consequences are governed by the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943
Rescission is not the reason money may be returned following frustration.
AQA's 2025 examiner report criticised students who treated recovery of money after frustration as an application of rescission.
So:
frustration → Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943
not:
frustration → rescission
Rescission is not the Consumer Rights Act right to reject
Consumers may have statutory rights to reject goods under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Those rights should not automatically be described as rescission.
The statutory remedies were studied in earlier lessons, including Remedies for goods and the relevant Consumer Rights Act provisions.
Where the question specifically requires statutory consumer remedies, use the statutory terminology.
AQA's examiner reports repeatedly warn students to follow the legal issue identified in the question rather than substitute an unrelated route.
Choosing rescission because of the claimant's objective
When analysing remedies, consider the practical outcome the claimant wants.
AQA's 2023 examiner report stresses that the real concern of the parties is likely to be the practical result produced by the remedy.
Claimant wants to undo the transaction
Rescission may be particularly suitable.
Claimant wants financial compensation for breach
Damages may be more appropriate.
Claimant wants the defendant to carry out the contract
Consider Specific performance [Lesson 157. Specific performance], subject to its restrictions.
Claimant wants to end future performance after serious breach
Consider Termination for breach [Lesson 159. Termination for breach].
Selecting the correct remedy is itself an important examination skill.
Worked example 1: straightforward rescission
Priya buys a coat from Rowan for £200 after relying on Rowan's actionable misrepresentation about the material. Priya discovers the truth two days later. She has not used or altered the coat and immediately asks to return it.
Ground: Actionable misrepresentation.
Remedy: Priya may seek rescission.
Restoration: She can return the coat and Rowan can return the £200.
Bars: There is no obvious delay, affirmation or third-party right.
Conclusion: Rescission appears likely to be an appropriate remedy because full restitutio in integrum is possible.
Worked example 2: affirmation
Sam buys equipment from Talia following an actionable misrepresentation. Sam discovers the truth but tells Talia that he has decided to keep the equipment and continue with the contract. Three months later he attempts to rescind.
Although there was an original basis for rescission, Sam's conduct after discovering the truth may amount to affirmation.
He may therefore have lost the right to rescind.
The key fact is not merely that time passed. It is that Sam knowingly chose to continue with the contract.
Worked example 3: delay
Uma is fraudulently induced to buy an item from Victor. She discovers the fraud but waits for a significant period before attempting to rescind.
Fraudulent misrepresentation can make rescission available in principle.
However, rescission remains equitable.
AQA's 2025 examination expressly confirms that significant delay may prevent rescission even following fraudulent misrepresentation.
Uma therefore cannot argue that fraud makes the remedy automatic.
Worked example 4: third-party rights
Willow buys an item from Xavier after an actionable misrepresentation. Before discovering the truth, Willow transfers it to Yasmin, an innocent third party who acquires rights in it.
Rescission of the original contract would now affect Yasmin's position.
AQA identifies acquisition of third-party rights as a possible bar to rescission.
Willow may therefore be unable to obtain rescission even though the original misrepresentation is actionable.
Worked example 5: restoration impossible
Zara buys unique equipment from Aaron following an actionable misrepresentation. Before Zara discovers the truth, the equipment is destroyed and cannot be returned.
The original misrepresentation may provide a basis for rescission.
However, rescission requires the parties to be capable of restoration to their original positions.
The inability to return the equipment creates a serious barrier.
AQA specifically identifies impossibility of restoration as a reason why rescission may be lost.
Worked example 6: economic duress
Bella is already contractually entitled to performance from Connor. Through improper economic pressure, Connor obtains Bella's agreement to pay an additional £3,000.
If economic duress is established, Bella may seek rescission of the additional agreement.
The remedy would operate to set aside the agreement obtained through duress.
It does not follow that every part of the parties' wider contractual relationship is automatically erased.
The relevant agreement and remedy must be identified from the facts.
This connects with Economic duress [Lesson 149. Economic duress].
Worked example 7: breach wrongly described as rescission
Deepa contracts with Elliot to supply machinery on Monday. Monday arrives and Elliot completely fails to perform a condition. Deepa decides to bring their future contractual relationship to an end.
The relevant issue is repudiatory breach.
Deepa may be entitled to treat the contract as at an end.
It would be incorrect to say:
"Deepa rescinds the contract."
There is no misrepresentation or economic duress providing the equitable basis considered in this lesson.
This is termination for breach, which is covered in Lesson 159. Termination for breach.
Worked example 8: private sale
Farah buys a shirt from George for £90 after George innocently makes an actionable misrepresentation about the material. Farah immediately discovers the truth and simply wants to return the shirt.
This resembles AQA's 2023 Fred and Ezra scenario.
Rescission is particularly suitable because:
Farah can return the shirt
George can return the £90
the parties can be restored
there is no stated barrier to rescission
The transaction can therefore potentially be undone through restitutio in integrum.
There is no need to force the facts into a Consumer Rights Act analysis if both parties are private individuals.
A step-by-step approach to rescission scenarios
Step 1: identify the legal basis
Ask why rescission is being considered.
AQA materials particularly associate it with:
misrepresentation
economic duress
If the facts instead concern repudiatory breach, consider termination, not rescission.
Step 2: explain the nature of the remedy
State that rescission is:
equitable
discretionary
Do not describe it as automatic.
Step 3: explain its effect
If awarded:
the contract is treated as void from the outset
the parties should be restored to their pre-contractual positions
Use the term restitutio in integrum.
Step 4: identify what each party must return
Be specific.
For example:
Aaron returns the laptop and Bella returns the £600.
This is much stronger than merely saying:
"The parties go back to where they started."
Step 5: test whether restoration is possible
Can both parties actually be restored?
If not, rescission may be unavailable.
Step 6: look for bars to rescission
Scan the facts for:
affirmation
lapse of time
third-party rights
impossibility of restoration
Apply only the barriers supported by the facts.
Step 7: consider other remedies where relevant
Depending on the legal basis, damages may also be available.
The detailed relationship between misrepresentation and damages is covered in Remedies for misrepresentation [Lesson 148. Remedies for misrepresentation].
Do not automatically combine remedies without applying the correct rules.
Step 8: reach a clear conclusion
For example:
The negligent misrepresentation provides a basis for rescission. Rescission is equitable and discretionary, but there appears to be no relevant bar because Chloe acted immediately, has not affirmed the contract and can return the goods. Full restitutio in integrum is therefore possible, so rescission is likely to allow Chloe to return the goods and recover the purchase price.
Or:
Although fraudulent misrepresentation initially makes rescission available, Daniel knowingly continued with the contract for several months after discovering the truth. His conduct may amount to affirmation, so rescission is likely to be unavailable.
A rescission decision tree
Why does the claimant want the contract undone?
Misrepresentation or economic duress?
Yes → rescission may be relevant.
No, only breach → consider [Lesson 159. Termination for breach].
Can the parties be restored to their original positions?
Yes → continue.
No → rescission may be barred.
Has the claimant affirmed the contract?
Yes → rescission may be lost.
No → continue.
Has there been excessive delay?
Yes → rescission may be unavailable.
No → continue.
Have third-party rights arisen?
Yes → rescission may be barred.
No → rescission may remain available.
Finally remember:
The court still has equitable discretion.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Rescission | An equitable remedy which sets a contract aside and treats it as void from the outset. | Decide whether a transaction affected by misrepresentation or economic duress can be undone. |
Void ab initio | Treated as void from the beginning. | Explain the retrospective effect of rescission. |
Restitutio in integrum | Restoration of both parties to their pre-contractual positions. | Explain what each party must return if rescission is awarded. |
Affirmation | Choosing to continue with the contract after becoming aware of the problem which could justify rescission. | Identify a possible bar to rescission. |
Equitable remedy | A remedy awarded according to equitable principles and the court's discretion. | Explain why rescission is not automatic. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Use the word rescission precisely. AQA has warned about this mistake in successive examiner reports. Rescission is not a universal term for bringing a contract to an end.
Examiner hint: Explain the effect. Strong answers should state that rescission treats the contract as void from the outset and seeks to restore the parties to their pre-contractual positions.
Examiner hint: Do not stop at saying "rescission is available". The 2024 report found that few students discussed its discretionary nature, restitutio in integrum and the barriers which may prevent it.
Examiner hint: Think practically. In the 2023 shirt scenario, Fred wanted to return the shirt and recover his £80. Rescission directly achieved that result.
Examiner hint: Remember the barriers. AQA specifically identifies impossibility of restoration, affirmation, lapse of time and third-party rights.
Examiner hint: Fraud does not remove the equitable restrictions. AQA's 2025 question confirms that rescission may still be refused for fraudulent misrepresentation where there has been significant delay.
Examiner hint: Do not use rescission for repudiatory breach. The 2025 examiner report found this remained a common mistake. The correct remedy is to elect to treat the contract as at an end, which is examined in [Lesson 159. Termination for breach].
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying rescission means any contract has been terminated
Why this is incorrect: Rescission is a specific equitable remedy, not a general word meaning "the contract has ended".
How to improve: Identify the legal basis before using the term.
Use rescission for appropriate circumstances such as misrepresentation or economic duress.
Use termination where the issue is repudiatory breach.
Mistake: Saying rescission operates only from the date it is awarded
Why this is incorrect: AQA describes the effect of rescission as treating the contract as void from the outset.
How to improve: Use the phrase:
"The contract is treated as void ab initio."
Then explain restoration of the parties.
Mistake: Mentioning only the claimant getting their money back
Why this is incorrect: Rescission involves restitutio in integrum for both parties.
How to improve: Explain both sides of the restoration.
For example:
"The buyer returns the goods and the seller returns the purchase price."
Mistake: Assuming rescission is automatic after misrepresentation
Why this is incorrect: Rescission is equitable and discretionary.
How to improve: State that the claimant may seek rescission, then test for relevant barriers.
Mistake: Ignoring affirmation
Why this is incorrect: A claimant who knowingly chooses to continue with the contract may lose the right to rescind.
How to improve: Look carefully at what the claimant did after discovering the truth.
Mistake: Ignoring delay
Why this is incorrect: AQA has expressly tested delay as a reason rescission might not be awarded.
How to improve: Use the timeline in the scenario and ask how quickly the claimant acted after discovering the problem.
Mistake: Forgetting third-party rights
Why this is incorrect: The acquisition of rights by a third party is one of the barriers specifically identified by AQA.
How to improve: Check whether the subject matter has been transferred to somebody else before the claimant tries to rescind.
Mistake: Using rescission for frustration
Why this is incorrect: Frustration is a method of discharge with financial consequences governed by the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943.
How to improve: Keep the legal routes separate:
frustration → 1943 Act
misrepresentation/economic duress → possible rescission
Mistake: Confusing rescission and compensatory damages
Why this is incorrect: Rescission seeks restoration to the pre-contractual position. Contractual damages ordinarily seek to compensate the claimant for the position they would have occupied if the contract had been performed.
How to improve: Ask whether the claimant wants to undo the transaction or receive compensation for contractual loss.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
What is meant by rescission of a contract?
[1 mark]
Question 2
Explain the effect of rescission upon a contract.
[3 marks]
Question 3
Explain what is meant by restitutio in integrum.
[3 marks]
Question 4
Identify two circumstances which may prevent rescission being awarded.
[2 marks]
Question 5
Amina buys a jacket from Bilal for £150 after an actionable misrepresentation. She discovers the truth the next day and immediately offers to return the unchanged jacket.
Explain whether rescission is likely to be an appropriate remedy.
[5 marks]
Question 6
Cara buys equipment from Dylan following an actionable misrepresentation. Cara discovers the truth but tells Dylan that she intends to keep the equipment and continue with the contract. Two months later she attempts to rescind.
Advise Cara whether rescission is likely to remain available.
[5 marks]
Question 7
Ella is fraudulently induced by Faisal to enter a contract. Ella discovers the fraud but waits for a substantial period before asking the court to rescind the agreement.
Explain why fraudulent misrepresentation does not necessarily guarantee that Ella will obtain rescission.
[5 marks]
Question 8
Grace buys a watch from Haris for £2,000 after an actionable negligent misrepresentation. She discovers the truth immediately. The watch remains unchanged in her possession and no third party has acquired rights in it.
Advise Grace on rescission and its practical effect.
[10 marks]
Question 9
Imani contracts with Jacob for specialist equipment. Jacob commits a repudiatory breach of a condition by failing to supply the equipment when due. Imani states that she intends to "rescind the contract because of Jacob's breach".
Explain whether Imani is using the correct legal remedy and terminology.
[10 marks]
Answers and Mark Scheme
Question 1
1 mark for explaining that rescission is an equitable remedy which sets aside a contract.
Question 2
Award up to 3 marks for explaining that:
rescission treats the contract as void from the outset
it aims to undo the transaction
the parties should, as far as possible, be restored to their pre-contractual positions
Question 3
Award up to 3 marks for explaining that:
restitutio in integrum means restoration to the original position
both parties should give back what they received under the contract
this is central to the availability and operation of rescission
Question 4
Award 1 mark each for any two of:
impossibility of restoring the parties
affirmation
lapse of time
acquisition of third-party rights
Maximum 2 marks.
Question 5
Award up to 5 marks for:
identifying actionable misrepresentation as an appropriate basis for rescission
explaining that rescission is equitable and discretionary
explaining that the contract would be treated as void from the outset
applying the fact that Amina can return the unchanged jacket and Bilal can return the £150
identifying no obvious affirmation, delay or third-party rights
concluding that rescission is likely to be an appropriate remedy
Question 6
Award up to 5 marks for:
recognising that the original misrepresentation could make rescission available
explaining that the remedy is equitable rather than automatic
identifying affirmation as a bar to rescission
applying Cara's decision to continue with the contract after discovering the truth
concluding that Cara is likely to have lost the right to rescind
Question 7
Award up to 5 marks for:
recognising that fraudulent misrepresentation normally makes rescission available in principle
explaining that rescission is an equitable and discretionary remedy
identifying lapse of time or delay as a possible bar
applying Ella's substantial delay after discovering the fraud
concluding that the court may refuse rescission despite the misrepresentation being fraudulent
This reflects the point directly tested by AQA in 2025.
Question 8
Award up to 10 marks for a reasoned answer including:
negligent misrepresentation provides a basis for rescission
rescission is an equitable and discretionary remedy
if awarded, the contract is treated as void ab initio
the aim is full restitutio in integrum
Grace should return the watch
Haris should return the £2,000
the watch is unchanged, so restoration appears possible
Grace acts immediately, so there is no apparent lapse of time
there is no evidence of affirmation
the facts expressly state that no third-party rights have arisen
rescission therefore appears likely to be available
damages may also need to be considered under the separate rules governing negligent misrepresentation if Grace has suffered an appropriate loss
A high-level answer will explain not only that rescission is available but what the remedy practically does.
Question 9
Award up to 10 marks for a reasoned answer including:
identifying Jacob's failure to perform a condition as an actual breach
recognising that breach of a condition is repudiatory
explaining that the innocent party may have the right to treat the contract as at an end
recognising that Imani's use of "rescission" is incorrect on the stated facts
explaining that rescission is an equitable remedy associated with matters such as misrepresentation and economic duress
explaining that rescission treats the contract as void from the outset
distinguishing this from termination following repudiatory breach
explaining that termination following breach operates from the innocent party's relevant election rather than retrospectively erasing the contract
identifying damages as another possible remedy following repudiatory breach
concluding that Imani should analyse termination for breach, not rescission
The detailed rules governing that remedy are covered in Termination for breach [Lesson 159. Termination for breach].
Comments