Legal Definitions - election of remedies

Election of Remedies refers to a legal principle that requires a party who has suffered a wrong to choose between two or more available legal solutions (known as remedies) that are contradictory or mutually exclusive, all stemming from the same set of facts. The primary purpose of this doctrine is to prevent the wronged party from receiving more than fair compensation for a single harm, thereby avoiding a "double recovery." Once a party definitively pursues one of these inconsistent remedies to a conclusion, they are generally prevented from later seeking the other. This principle only applies when the remedies truly conflict; if they are consistent and merely offer different forms of relief that can coexist, then the doctrine of election of remedies does not apply.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Contract Breach with Defective Goods:

  Imagine a consumer purchases a custom-built car from a manufacturer. Upon delivery, the car has significant defects that violate the terms of the sales contract. The consumer has two main, inconsistent remedies available:

  • They could seek to rescind the contract, which means returning the defective car to the manufacturer and demanding a full refund of the purchase price, effectively undoing the entire sale.
  • Alternatively, they could sue for damages for breach of contract, meaning they keep the car but demand monetary compensation to cover the cost of repairs or the diminished value of the car due to the defects.

  These remedies are inconsistent because rescission treats the contract as if it never existed, aiming to restore both parties to their original positions. Suing for damages, on the other hand, acknowledges the contract's existence but seeks financial compensation for its violation. The consumer cannot both cancel the contract and simultaneously claim money for its breach, as that would constitute double recovery for the same wrong. They must elect one remedy.

• Fraudulent Property Sale:

  Consider a small business owner who purchases a piece of commercial property. Later, they discover that the seller intentionally misrepresented the property's zoning classification, making it unsuitable for the buyer's intended business use. The buyer faces a choice between two inconsistent remedies:

  • The buyer could pursue rescission of the sale, which would involve returning the property to the seller and getting their full purchase price back, effectively canceling the transaction due to the fraud.
  • Alternatively, the buyer could sue for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, meaning they keep the property but seek monetary compensation for the difference between the price paid and the property's actual value given its true zoning, or for losses incurred due to the misrepresentation.

  These remedies are inconsistent because rescission aims to undo the entire transaction, treating it as if it never happened due to the fraud. Suing for damages, however, implies affirming the transaction but seeking financial compensation for the harm caused by the fraud. The buyer must choose one path because they cannot simultaneously undo the sale and also claim compensation for the harm suffered within that same sale.