While the great weight of authority, as disclosed in the foregoing sections,1 is to the effect that misrepresentation as to one of the essential elements of the contract makes it void; that is, that such misrepresentation prevents such contract from ever coming into existence, there is an occasional suggestion that such contract is to be treated as voidable rather than as void.2 It has been intimated that the party who has been misled may avoid the transaction only if he acts promptly.3

4 Ripley v. Case, 86 Mich. 261, 49 N. W. 46; Post v. Liberty, 45 Mont. 1, 121 Ac. 475; Sutton v. Morgan, 158 Pa. St. 204, 38 Am. St. Rep. 841, 27 Atl. 894; Shaw v. O'Neill, 45 Wash. 98, 88 Ac. 111.

5 Ripley v. Case, 86 Mich. 261, 49 N. W. 46.

6 McKinnon v. Vollmar, 75 Wis. 82, 17 Am. St. Rep. 178, 6 L. R. A. 121, 43 N. W. 800.

7 Long v. Inhabitants of Athol, 196

Mass. 497, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 96, 82 N. E. 665.

8 Post v. Liberty, 45 Mont. 1, 121 Ac. 475.

9 Shaw v. O'Neill, 45 Wash. 98, 88 Ac. 111.

1 See Sec. 243 to 248.

2 Standard Mfg. Co. v. Slot, 121 Wis. 14, 105 Am. St. Rep. 1016, 98 N. W. 923.

3 Standard Mfg. Co. v. Slot, 121 Wis. 14, 105 Am. St. Rep. 1016, 98 N. W. 923.