Contractual Breach and Rescission Upheld on Factual Findings

The case concerns a contractual dispute where one party claimed the other had failed to fulfill an obligation stipulated in a settlement agreement, leading to a request for rescission and damages, but the lower court had dismissed the claim based on insufficient evidence to prove the breach. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, reasoning that the assessment of the facts, including determining whether the alleged contractual obligations were actually breached and whether that breach was sufficiently serious to warrant rescission, fell within the discretionary power of the trial judge, and the lower court's finding that the evidence did not establish the necessary breach was factually supported and legally sound.