Keasler, 395 S.W.2d 111, 116[3] (Mo.Sup. 1965). In Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614 (Mo.App. 1991), a buyer sued the firm that sold him a boat. In a multiple count petition, buyer sought rescission of the contract (Counts I and II) and damages for conversion (Count III).
An award for damages cannot be based on guesswork or speculation, therefore, I must find that the evidence presented offers a reasonable basis for assessing the damages. See, e.g. Ladeas v. Carter, 845 S.W.2d 45, 53 (Mo.Ct.App. 1992); Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991); Lacks v. R. Rowland Co., Inc., 718 S.W.2d 513, 520 (Mo.Ct.App. 1986); Breece v. Jett, 556 S.W.2d 696, 709 (Mo.Ct.App. 1977).Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d at 619 (citations omitted).
Rescission of a contract extinguishes it as effectually as if it had never been made, and restores the parties to the positions they occupied before the contract was executed. Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 620[13] (Mo.App.S.D. 1991); Henges Co., Inc. v. May, 223 S.W.2d 110, 113[6] (Mo.App 1949). In other words, the parties are revested with their original rights regarding the subject matter, and they are no longer bound by the contract in regard to their subsequent actions. Alexander, 814 S.W.2d at 620[14]; Henges Co., Inc., 223 S.W.2d at 113[6].
Although nominal damages are "trifling" in value, see "Damages," Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019), there is no standard amount awarded to parties under Missouri law.See, e.g. , Heifetz v. Apex Clayton, Inc. , 2015 WL 6737772, at *1 (Mo. Cir. Ct. Oct. 26, 2015) (awarding nominal damages of $1,000), aff'd , 554 S.W.3d 389, 392 (Mo. 2018) ; Green v. Study , 286 S.W.3d 236, 242 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (reversing the trial court's nominal damages award of $1,000 in the replevin context but acknowledging trial courts’ authority to exercise discretion in choosing the amount of a nominal damages award); Evans v. Werle , 31 S.W.3d 489, 493 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (awarding nominal damages of $1); Morgan Publ'ns, Inc. v. Squire Publishers, Inc. , 26 S.W.3d 164, 176 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (affirming a nominal damages award of $2); Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc. , 814 S.W.2d 614, 621 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (affirming a damage award where the nominal damages were $10); see also 24 Samuel Williston & Richard A. Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 64:10 (4th ed. 1993 & Supp. 2022) (recognizing that "nominal damages have been awarded in greater amounts [than $1]"). The district court thus has yet to determine the value of the nominal damages and "personalize[ ] the remedy."
“Plaintiff's retention of the compensation benefits constitutes an election precluding the maintenance of the ‘inconsistent’ tort action.” Ballinger, 788 S.W.2d at 515;see also Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 620 (Mo.Ct.App.1991) (“Where a party has a right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies, makes his election [and] receives something of value on the claim, he cannot thereafter pursue another and inconsistent remedy.”); Grote Meat Co. v. Goldenberg, 735 S.W.2d 379, 386 (Mo.Ct.App.1987) (indicating the election of remedies doctrine is binding when “there has been a gain by the plaintiff and a loss by the defendant”).
"Rescission of a contract extinguishes it as effectually as if it had never been made, and restores the parties to the positions they occupied before the contract was executed." Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 620 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991). "[R]escission may be shown by acts and declarations of the parties which are inconsistent with the continued existence of the previous contract."
The measure of damages for a claim of conversion under Missouri law is generally the market value of the property at the time of conversion. Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991).
Rescission of a contract extinguishes it as effectually as if it had never been made, and restores the parties to the positions they occupied before the contract was executed.Williams v. AgriBank, FCB, 972 F.2d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1992) (quoting Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 620 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991)). Therefore, the parties to that lawsuit were placed in the same position they were in prior to executing the stock sale transaction.
. . . with the advent of the liberalized pleading rules, most courts will not invoke the doctrine [of election of remedies] unless (1) the plaintiff has prosecuted the chosen remedy either to final judgment or a determinative conclusion, see Gottschalk v.Simpson, 422 N.W.2d 181, 185 (Iowa 1988); Christensen v. Eggen, 577 N.W.2d 221, 224 (Minn. 1998); Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 620-21 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991); Family Bankof Commerce v. Nelson, 72 Or. App. 739, 697 P.2d 216, 218 (Or. Ct. App. 1985), or (2) the defendant has materially changed its position based on the plaintiff's choice of remedy. See Ripple v. Wold, 549 N.W.2d at 675-76.
However, with the advent of the liberalized pleading rules, most courts will not invoke the doctrine unless (1) the plaintiff has prosecuted the chosen remedy either to final judgment or a determinative conclusion, see Gottschalk v. Simpson, 422 N.W.2d 181, 185 (Iowa 1988); Christensen v. Eggen, 577 N.W.2d 221, 224 (Minn. 1998);Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 620-21 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991); Family Bank of Commerce v. Nelson, 697 P.2d 216, 218 (Or.Ct.App. 1985), or (2) the defendant has materially changed its position based on the plaintiff's choice of remedy.See Ripple v. Wold, 549 N.W.2d at 675-76.