This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
If a simple contract has been performed in whole or in part, the defrauded party may rescind informally and sue to recover what he has parted with under the contract or the value thereof.1 Where fraud induces a sale on credit, the defrauded party may sue at once for the price,2 or he may replevin the goods,3 or he may recover such goods in a proceeding in equity to settle the estate of the purchaser who has died insolvent.4 If the fraudulent purchaser has sold the goods to one who is not an innocent purchaser, the original seller may recover the goods or their proceeds from such purchaser.5 If the purchaser attempts to recover the goods from the second purchaser, the second purchaser must show that he bought such goods for a valuable consideration; and if he makes such showing, the original seller must then show that such purchaser bought with notice of the fraud.6 If services have been rendered under a special contract induced by fraud, the defrauded party may sue for the reasonable value of such services, less what he has received under the contract. He is not obliged to restore what he has received and sue for the entire amount due as reasonable compensation.7 An action of this sort is in quasi-contract.8
8 Honaker v. Board of Education, 42 W. Va. 170, 57 Am. St. Rep. 847, 32 L. R. A. 413, 24 S. E. 544.
9 Sell v. Mississippi River Logging Co., 88 Wis. 581, 60 N. W. 1065; Multnomah County v. Standard American Dredging Co. (Or.), 180 Ac. 508.
1 United States. Mather v. Barnes, 146 Fed. 1000.
Alabama. King v. White, 119 Ala. 429, 24 So. 710; Hafer v. Cole, 176 Ala. 242, 57 So. 757; Lowery v. Mutual Loan Soc., - Ala. - , 79 So. 389 (obiter).
Florida. Kitchen v. Long, 67 Fla. 72, L. R. A. 1917C, 617, 64 So. 429.
Indiana. Weil v. Stone, 33 Ind. App. 112, 104 Am. St. Rep. 243, 69 N. E. 698.
Kansas. Murray v. Davies, 77 Kan. 767, 94 Ac. 283.
Maine. Bither v. Packard, 115 Me. 306, 98 Atl. 929; Prest v. Farmington, 104 Atl. 521 (obiter).
Massachusetts. Roberts v. French, 153 Mass. 60, 25 Am. St. Rep. 611, 26 N. E. 416.
Michigan. Coon v. Anderson, 101 Mich. 295, 59 N. W. 607; Billig v. Goodrich, 165 N. W. 647.
Minnesota. Corse v. Minnesota Grain Co., 94 Minn. 331, 102 N. W. 728.
Nebraska. Martin v. Hutton, 90 Neb. 34, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 602, 132 N. W. 727; Hellebust v. Bonde, - N. D. - , 172 N. W. 812.
South Dakota. Taylor v. Bank, 9 S. D. 572, 70 N. W. 834.
Wisconsin. Mayhew v. Mather, 82 Wis. 355, 52 N. W. 436. See Sec. 1510 et seq.
The Quasi-Contractual Remedy in Cases of Express Contract Induced by Fraud, 28 Yale Law Journal, 255.
2 Murray v. Davies, 77 Kan. 767, 94 Ac. 283; Jaffrey v. Wolf, 4 Okla. 303, 47 Ac. 496.
3 Illinois. Farwell v. Hanchett, 120 111. 573, 11 N. E. 875.
Indiana. Brower v. Goodyer, 88 Ind. 572.
Kentucky. Tennent Shoe Co. v. Sto-vall (Ky.), 78 S. W. 417.
Missouri. Goebel v. Troll, 71 Mo. App. 123.
North Dakota. Ditton v. Purcell, 21 N. D. 648, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 149, 132 N. W. 347.
Ohio. Wilmot v. Lyon, 49 O. S. 296; 34 N. E. 720.
Pennsylvania. Cincinnati Cooperage Co. v. Gaul, 170 Pa. St. 545, 32 Atl. 1093.