Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jennings v. Lee, 461 P.2d 161.

65 citing documents.

Tempe Woman's v. Loren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Tempe Woman's v. Loren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Aow v. Scythian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Aow v. Scythian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-73 (1969) (action for rescission based on fraud); (breach of contract).
Unted v. Gammage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Unted v. Gammage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
First United v. Four Corners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
First United v. Four Corners Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Timeless v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P.2d 161 (1969) (action for rescission based on fraud); P.2d 41 (App. 1980) (action for rescission based on breach of contract; stating that upon breach, the aggrieved party has three remedies: rescission, continued performance, or termination and damages).
First United v. La Jolla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
First United v. La Jolla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A claimant may not “both repudiate] the contract and then su[e] on it to gain the benefit of the bargain.”
Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC 294 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC 294 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 39 A real estate broker “occupied] a confidential and fiduciary relationship with the [client] and thereby [is] held to the highest ethical standards of fairness and honesty.” -02 , -02 (App.1977); see also, , Walston & , -61 (1966)
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
“A party who has been defrauded is put to an election of remedies, i.e. he may either rescind the contract or affirm the contract and sue for damages, but he cannot do both.”
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Jennings v. Lee , , (“The general rule is that a party seeking to rescind a contract must restore or offer to restore to the other party that which he has received under the contract.”).
Short v. Petty 139 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Superior Court (Stewart), 168 *
Hull v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Hull v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶9 Despite the clear language of the statute, P.2d 161 (1969), to find that the Hulls were entitled to the statutory remedies even after they had sold the vehicle.
Medasys Acquisition Corp. v. SDMS, P.C. 55 P.3d 763 Ariz. 2002
Medasys Acquisition Corp. v. SDMS, P.C. 55 P.3d 763 Ariz. 2002
at 352, 529 P.2d at 702; (affirming the court’s “ample authority” to award a defrauded party not only “the consideration he gave,” but also “any sums that are necessary to restore him to his position prior to the making of the contract”); Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc., 602 P.2d
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Haldiman v. Gosnell Development Corp. 748 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Haldiman v. Gosnell Development Corp. 748 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Landin v. Ford 727 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1986
Landin v. Ford 727 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1986
The election of remedies doctrine merely prevents a plaintiff from “both repudiating [a] contract and then suing on it to gain the benefit of the bargain.”
USLife Title Co. of Arizona v. Gutkin 732 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
USLife Title Co. of Arizona v. Gutkin 732 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc.
Renner v. Kehl 722 P.2d 262 Ariz. 1986
Renner v. Kehl 722 P.2d 262 Ariz. 1986
124 Ariz. at 129 , 602 P.2d at 510 ; , (election of remedies).
Musselman v. Southwinds Realty, Inc. 704 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Musselman v. Southwinds Realty, Inc. 704 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
our supreme court used the language, “A broker is under a duty to disclose to his client information which he possesses pertaining to the transaction in question.” 105 Ariz. at 173 , 461 P.2d at 167 .
Cowley v. Kaechelle 696 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cowley v. Kaechelle 696 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Bazurto v. Burgess 666 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Bazurto v. Burgess 666 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Phillips v. Adler 657 P.2d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Phillips v. Adler 657 P.2d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc. 602 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc. 602 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Beauchamp v. Wilson, 21 Ariz.App.
Parks v. MacRo-dynamics, Inc. 591 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Parks v. MacRo-dynamics, Inc. 591 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Jones v. CPR Div., Upjohn Co. 584 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Jones v. CPR Div., Upjohn Co. 584 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Washington Nationall Corp. v. Thomas 570 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977