proceeds from its sale of approximately 200,000 ICOHA Shares.” Ellipso I at 4. At oral argument, counsel for the defendants was asked specifically whether it was true that Mann Technologies had no significant assets other than the disputed shares. He responded that, “At the time [of the injunction], your Hon- or, that was [ ] correct.” Recording of Oral Argument at 7:37. Given that Mann Technologies had no other assets from which Ellipso might .S. 282, 289-90, 61 S.Ct. 229, 85 L.Ed. 189 (1940) (permitting an injunction freezing assets because it assisted the ultimate equitable relief of rescission). If Ellipso had in fact affirmed the loan agreement, Ellipso’s sole remedy for fraud in the inducement of that contract would have been damages — a legal remedy, see Dean, 779 A.2d at 915 (<HOLDING>); it would have been unable to show the
holding a party seeking mandamus must serve the party against whom relief is sought holding elements of rescission are 1 holding for rescission of contract for sale of land that mistake must be such that it animated and controlled the conduct of the party holding that party affirming contract is precluded from later seeking rescission holding that a party is precluded from claiming attorneys fees under a contract which has been found to have never existed