If the defrauded party elects to ratify the contract, he can not rescind thereafter.1

Ratification prevents subsequent rescission, but on principle it should not waive the right of action for damages; and some authorities so hold, on the ground that the action of deceit necessarily presumes that the contract is affirmed.2 If the seller of property is induced to enter into the contract of sale by fraudulent representations, his action in affirming the contract of sale and suing to recover the purchase price does not prevent him from maintaining an action in tort for damages sustained by such deceit.3 The fact that the seller recovers a judgment for the purchase price of goods which he is induced to sell by fraud, is not a bar to a subsequent action by the seller to recover damages for deceit, if the udgment for the price of the goods can not be collected.4

Some authorities, however, treat ratification as waivir he right of action for damages.1 Keeping possession of leased premises for over a year, asking reduction in rent and time to pay rent overdue without making any claim for damages waives such claim.6

5 Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353, L. R. A. 1916F, 476, 149 N. W. 547.

1 Encyclopedia Press v. Harris, 140 Minn. 145, 167 N. W. 363; Gilmore v. Western Electric Co. (N. D.), 172 N. W. 111; Bradley v. Tolson, 117 Va. 467, 85 S. E. 466; Coffman v. Viques-ney, 76 W. Va. 84, 84 S. E. 1069.

2 Connecticut. Wilson v. Nichols, 72 Conn. 173, 43 Atl. 1052.

Illinois. Siltz v. Springer, 236 111. 276, 85 N. E. 748 [affirming Springer v. Siltz, 133 III. App. 552].

Iowa. Dilenbeck v. Davis (la.), 172 N. W. 184.

Maryland. Weaver v. Shriver, 79 Md. 530, 30 Atl. 189.

Massachusetts. Andrews v: Jackson, 168 Mass. 266, 60 Am. St. Rep. 390, 37 L. R. A. 402, 47 N. E. 412.

Michigan. Warren v. Cole, 15 Mich. 265; Lenox v. Fuller, 39 Mich. 268, 273; Gilchrist v. Manning, 54 Mich. 210, 19 N. W. 959; Morman v. Harrington, 118 Mich. 623, 77 N. W. 242.

New York. Mclntyre v. Buell, 132 N. Y. 192, 30 N. E. 396.

Oregon. MuKnoraah County v. Standard American Dredging Co. (Or.), 180 Ac. 508.

Texas. Subtle v. Hutchinson (Tex. Civ. App.), 31 S. W. 211.

Virginia. Jordan v. Annex Corporation, 109 Va. 625, 64 S. E. 1050.

Wisconsin. Sell v. Miss. River Logging Co., 8 Wis. 581, 60 N. W. 1065.

3 Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Owings, 140 N. Car. 503, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 582, 53 S. E. 345.

4 Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Owings, 140 N. Car. 503, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 582, 53 S. E. 345.

5 England. Selway v. Fogg, 5 M. & W: 83.

Arkansas. McDonough v. Williams, 77 Ark. 261, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 452, 7 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 276, 92 S. W. 783.

California. Nounnan v. Sutter County Land Co., 81 Cal. 1, 22 Ac. 515.

If it is impracticable to place the adversary party in statu quo, as where a vendee of an electric light plant retains certain defective parts after he learns that the representations as to their condition were false, where it was practically impossible to make tender of such defective parts,7 ratification does not bar the right to recover damages.