Salt v. Stratstone, [2015] EWCA Civ 745

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

In 2022, Kai purchased a laptop from Rowan, who advertised it as "brand new in box." Upon inspection, Kai discovered that the laptop was manufactured two years earlier and had been used extensively. Rowan insisted that no misrepresentation occurred and that the laptop's condition aligned with its description. Kai plans to seek rescission of the contract, aiming to return the laptop and recover his purchase price. Rowan disputes that such a remedy is available, citing the device's wear and tear after use.


Which of the following best describes the approach to rescission in these circumstances, based on the principle established in Salt v Stratstone Specialist Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 745?

Introduction

Rescission is an equitable remedy that aims to return parties involved in a contract to their positions before the agreement. This principle works on the basis that a contract affected by issues like misrepresentation should be undone to prevent one party gaining unfairly from the other. The main requirement for rescission is the ability to achieve a practical return to original positions, meaning parties can be largely restored without needing perfect or exact reversal. Salt v Stratstone Specialist Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 745 clarified how this principle applies, especially in sales of goods.

The Facts of Salt v Stratstone

The case involved a Cadillac sold as “brand new” in 2007. Mr. Salt later found the car was made in 2005, had been damaged in a crash, and repaired before sale. These details conflicted with the “brand new” claim. Mr. Salt asked to undo the contract. The first ruling refused rescission, stating exact return was impossible due to the car’s value loss and use.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal reversed the first ruling, confirming exact return is not required for rescission. Lord Justice Longmore, giving the main judgment, stressed courts can modify rescission terms to ensure fair outcomes. This includes financial adjustments for benefits like car use. The Court ruled value loss alone does not block rescission. The key issue is whether a substantial return to original positions is feasible, not an exact reversal.

Practical Restitution and Section 1(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967

The case showed how rescission interacts with Section 1(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. This section lets courts award damages instead of rescission if rescission would be overly harsh. The Court of Appeal stated this power should not block rescission when practical return is achievable. The main goal should be restoring pre-contract positions, using financial adjustments to ensure fairness.

Implications for Contract Law

Salt v Stratstone has important effects on contract law. It confirms practical return as the central requirement for rescission. This clarifies rules for items like cars that lose value, stating value loss alone does not prevent rescission. The ruling shows courts can use financial adjustments to balance benefits gained under the contract. This supports buyers in misrepresentation cases, letting them seek rescission even if the item’s value has dropped.

The Role of Salt v Stratstone in Consumer Rights

The case boosts consumer rights by confirming rescission remains available for misrepresentation even if the item has changed over time. It highlights the need for accurate descriptions in sales, particularly for goods. The decision makes clear sellers cannot avoid misrepresentation claims by arguing goods were used or lost value. This stops consumers being unfairly tied to contracts based on false claims.

Conclusion

Salt v Stratstone Specialist Ltd offers important clarity on rescission in contract law. The ruling confirms practical return to original positions, not exact reversal, decides whether rescission is granted. While focused on car sales, the case affects broader contract law by showing courts’ flexibility in using rescission with financial adjustments to ensure fairness. It supports the principle of return and improves legal protections for consumers affected by misrepresentation. This clarity helps maintain fairness in contracts and strengthens consumer rights. The case sets a key example for disputes involving items that lose value and clarifies how rescission works with the Misrepresentation Act 1967. It improves the legal approach to misrepresentation and offers clear guidance for businesses and consumers in contracts.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal