Clarke v Dickson (1858) EB & E 148 is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation.

It stands as an example of the restrictive approach common law courts took to rescission for misrepresentation before the leading case of Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co[1] held only substantial counter restitution was needed.

He said where someone wants to exercise the voidable option, ...he must be in such a situation as to be able to put the parties into their original state before the contract...

He cannot return those; he has become bound to those others... Take the case I put in argument, of a butcher buying live cattle, killing them, and even selling the meat to his customers.

If the rule of law were as the plaintiff contends, that butcher might, upon discovering a fraud on the part of the grazier who sold him the cattle, rescind the contract and get back the whole price: but how could that be consistent with justice?Erle J and Lord Campbell CJ concurred.