1. The plaintiff-appellant in this case went to court seeking rescission as well as damages. What, exactly, is the remedy called rescission?
2. Why did the chancellor agree to grant rescission? What was the rationale behind this ruling?
3. Why did the chancellor refuse to allow the appellant any damages for fraud?
4. What recovery was made by the appellant?

Newbern, Justice
This is a real estate sale case in which the chancellor granted rescission in favor of the appellant on the ground of mutual mistake but did not award the money damages she claimed. The damages she sought were for her expenses in constructing improvements that subsequently had to be removed from the land. The appellant claims it was error for the chancellor to have found she did not rely on misrepresentations made by the appellees through their real estate agent, and thus it was error to refuse her damages for fraud plus costs and an attorney fee. On cross-appeal, the appellees contend the only possible basis for the rescission was fraud, not mistake, and the chancellor erred in granting rescission once he had found there was no reliance by the appellant on any active or constructive misrepresentations of the appellees. We find the chancellor was correct on all counts, and thus we affirm on both appeal and cross-appeal.