In McKenzie v McDonald [1927] VLR 134, which principle most
accurately explains why rescission was available despite restitution to the
original position not being available, i.e. the transfer of the farm back to
Mrs. McKenzie was impossible?

Question

In  McKenzie v McDonald  [1927] VLR 134, which principle most
accurately explains why rescission was available despite restitution to the
original position not being available, i.e. the transfer of the farm back to
Mrs. McKenzie was impossible?

Accepted Answer

Equity permits rescission where the fiduciary’s profit can be precisely quantified even if the property cannot be returned in identical form

Answer

Rescission was permitted because the agent had acted negligently, reducing the need for strict restoration

Answer

Rescission is always available in fiduciary cases regardless of whether
restitutio in integrum is possible

Answer

Rescission was available only because the contract was void at common law

Crowdly

In McKenzie v McDonald [1927] VLR 134, which principle most accurately explain...

Want instant access to all verified answers on learning.monash.edu?