The effect of fraud upon a contract is different from mistake in that while mistake renders a contract void, fraud only renders it voidable. If a person means to agree to the terms of the contract as set forth, no matter what the inducement to this agreement may have been, the contract is not a nullity and the party guilty of the fraud cannot take advantage of his own wrong and is himself bound by the contract. It rests with the defrauded party to determine whether the contract shall be enforced, or not.9 The various forms of fraud are so numerous as to render any complete classification of the subject very difficult. A general discussion of the subject including the necessary elements of deceit will be found in the chapter on deceit in the subject of Torts.10

Not all false representations will constitute fraud, so as to enable the party deceived to rescind the contract. For example, representations made at the time of an exchange of land, as to the quality of the land, by one of the parties to the transaction, being expression of opinion rather than statements of facts, are not, if untrue, such legal fraudulent misrepresentations as will in law entitle one of the parties to void the contract.11 The rights of the injured party to rescind a contract it limited by the restriction that the rights of innocen parties acquired for value cannot be effected thereby. Again, a person in order to rescind must place the other person in statu quo.12 This means that the person rescinding must give back, or offer to give back, anything of value which he has himself received under the contract.13 Rescission must take place within a reasonable time after the fraud is discovered.14

9 White vs. Garden, 10 C. B., 919;

15 Jur. 630; Nealson vs.

Henry, 121 Mass., 153, 154;

Pearsoll vs. Chapin, 8 Wright,

Pa. 9; Urquhart vs. MacPherson, 3 Ap. Cas., 831. 10 Vol. IV, Subject 8.

11 Tryce vs. Dittus, 65 N. E., 220,

199 I11., 189. 12 Montgomery vs. Gibbs, 40 la.,

652; Moore vs. Mass. Ben.

Assn., 165; Mass. 517, 43 N. E.,

298.