Rescission Denied Where Misrepresentation Justified Damages Only

A seller brought an action for rescission of a contract for the sale of a building, alleging the buyer had fraudulently misrepresented the property's capacity to support an additional story, which the buyer knew was the purpose of the purchase. The seller sought damages in addition to rescission, claiming the buyer's misrepresentation, made knowingly, constituted a fault under civil liability principles. The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, affirming that while the buyer's deceitful maneuver concerning the structural capacity could indeed constitute a fault justifying damages, the trial court correctly determined that the gravity of the deception did not warrant the drastic remedy of contract rescission, as the contract could still be executed for the property as sold, thus limiting the remedy to an award of damages.