Restitutio In Integrum

Restitutio in integrum, the rescinding of a contract or transaction, so as to place the parties to it in the same position, with respect to one another, which they occupied before the contract was made, or the transaction took place. The restitutio here spoken of is founded on the edict. If the contract or transaction is such as not to be valid, according to the jus civile this restitutio is not needed, and it only applies to cases of contracts and transactions, which are not in their nature or form invalid. In order to entitle a person to the restitutio, he must have sustained some injury capable of being estimated, in consequence of the contract or transaction, and not through any fault of his own, except in the case of one who is minor xxv. Annorum, who was protected by the restitutio against the consequences of his own carelessness.

The following are the chief cases in which a restitutio might be decreed:-

The case of vis et metus. When a man had acted under the influence of force or reasonable fear caused by the acts of the other party, he had an actio quod metus causa for restitution against the party who was the wrongdoer; and also against an innocent person, who was in possession of that which had thus illegally been got from him; and also against the heredes of the wrongdoer, if they were enriched by being his heredes. If he were sued in respect of the transaction, he could defend himself by an exceptio quod metus causa. The actio quod metus was given by the pr'tor, L. Octavius, a contemporary of Cicero.

The case of dolus. When a man was fraudulently induced to become a party to a transaction, which was legal in all respects saving the fraud, he had his actio de dolo malo against the guilty person and his heredes, so far as they were made richer by the fraud, for the restoration of the thing of which he had been defrauded; and if that were not possible, for compensation. Against a third party, who was in bona fide possession of the thing, he had no action. If he were sued in respect of the transaction, he could defend himself by the exceptio doli mali.

The case of minores xxv. Annorum. A minor could by himself do no legal act, for which the assent of a tutor or curator was required; and, therefore, if he did such act by himself, no restitutio was necessary. If the tutor had given his auctoritas or the curator his assent, the transaction was legally binding; but yet the minor could claim restitutio f he had sustained injury by the transaction.

There were, however, cases in which minores could obtain no restitutio; for instance, when a minor with a fradulent design gave himself out to be a major, when he confirmed the transaction after coming of age, and in other cases.

The case of absentia, which comprehends not merely absence in the ordinary sense of the word, but absence owing to madness or imprisonment, and the like causes.

The case of error. Mistake comprehends such error as cannot be imputed to blame; and in such a case a man could always have restitutio when another was enriched by his loss.

The case of alienatio in fraudem creditorum facta (Dig. 42, tit. 8). When a man was insolvent (non solvendo), and alienated his property for the purpose of injuring his creditors, the pr'tor's edict gave the creditors a remedy.

In the imperial times restitutio was also applied to the remission of a punishment (Tac. Ann. xiv. 12; Plin. Ep. x. 64, 65; Dig. xlviii., tit. 19, s. 27), which could only be done by the imperial grace, Sand. Just., 7th Edn. 48, 74, 219.Restoration to previous condition or the status quo, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn., p. 1315.