Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks about the remedies available to a person whose consent to a contract was obtained through misrepresentation. Misrepresentation, under Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, makes the contract voidable at the option of the aggrieved party.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
According to Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. This gives the aggrieved party several alternative remedies:
\begin{itemize}
\item (A) He can avoid or rescind the contract: This is the primary remedy. The aggrieved party can choose to cancel the contract entirely and be restored to their original position.
\item (B) He can affirm the contract and insist on the misrepresentation being made good: Alternatively, the party may choose to uphold the contract. If he does so, he can insist that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representation made had been true.
\item (C) He can rely on the misrepresentation as a defence: If the party who made the misrepresentation sues the aggrieved party to enforce the contract, the aggrieved party can use the misrepresentation as a valid defence to resist the enforcement of the contract.
\end{itemize}
Since all three options represent valid courses of action available to the aggrieved party, the correct answer is that all of them are available.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The correct answer is All of the above.