Legal Definitions - election, doctrine of

The doctrine of election is a legal principle that applies when a person is presented with two mutually exclusive rights or benefits, meaning they cannot claim both simultaneously. This doctrine requires that person to make a definitive choice between the two available options. Once they choose one, they are considered to have given up the other, and they cannot later change their mind to claim the relinquished right or benefit. The choice must typically be made with full knowledge of the available options and their implications, preventing someone from "having their cake and eating it too."

• Example 1: Beneficiary in a Will

  Imagine a will where a wealthy aunt leaves her nephew, Alex, a valuable antique watch. However, the same will also attempts to give a piece of land that Alex already owns to his cousin, Brenda. Alex cannot accept the antique watch (a benefit from the will) while simultaneously refusing to allow his land to go to Brenda, as that would contradict the terms of the will. Under the doctrine of election, Alex must choose: he can either accept the watch and allow his land to be transferred to Brenda as the will dictates, or he can reject the watch and keep his land, thereby frustrating the will's attempt to dispose of his property. He cannot have both the watch and his land if accepting the watch means validating the will's entire scheme.

• Example 2: Voidable Contract

  Suppose Sarah buys a vintage car from a dealer who falsely claims it has never been in an accident. After purchasing the car, Sarah discovers the misrepresentation. The contract is now voidable, meaning Sarah has a choice: she can either rescind the contract (return the car and get her money back) or affirm the contract (keep the car and perhaps sue for damages related to the misrepresentation, or simply accept it as is). She cannot keep the car and also demand a full refund as if the contract never happened. If Sarah, after learning of the accident history, continues to make monthly payments, drives the car for several months, and even invests in minor repairs, a court might determine that she has elected to affirm the contract, thereby losing her right to later demand a full rescission.

• Example 3: Remedies for Breach of Contract

  Consider a situation where a software development company fails to deliver a custom application as per their agreement with a client. The client has two main legal remedies: they can seek specific performance (a court order compelling the company to complete the software as agreed) or they can seek damages (monetary compensation to cover the cost of hiring another company to finish the project and any losses incurred due to the delay). These remedies are often mutually exclusive. If the client aggressively pursues specific performance through the courts for an extended period, they might be deemed to have elected that remedy. This election could potentially limit their ability to later switch their claim solely to monetary damages if specific performance becomes impractical or undesirable, as they cannot simultaneously demand the software be built and also demand money to build it elsewhere.