Party Not Entitled to Rescission of Contract When it Had An Adequate Remedy at Law

On May 20, 2021, the First Department issued a decision in Sky Coverage Inc. v. Alwex Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op. 03271, holding that a plaintiff was not entitled to rescission when it had an adequate remedy at law, explaining:

Although the motion court properly denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' rescission claim, it should have granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim, as plaintiffs are not entitled to rescission of the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law in the form of money damages under their breach of contract claim, and restoration of the status quo is impracticable. Although plaintiffs argue that money damages are not a proper remedy since they suffered harm to their reputation, their claim essentially describes loss of prospective business, as various insurance carriers declined to work with plaintiffs, which is an economic loss.

(Internal quotations omitted).

Suits for breach of contract typically seek money damages. As this decision discusses, there are other remedies potentially available to a plaintiff, including rescission--that is, rescinding the contract and returning the parties to their positions before the contract was signed. Contact Schlam Stone & Dolan partner John Lundin at jlundin@schlamstone.com if you or a client face a situation where you are unsure how to enforce rights you believe you have under a contract.