Bisset v Wilkinson
An honest statement of opinion is not a statement of fact and is not a misrepresentation.
Facts
Mr Bisset owned two blocks of land in New Zealand, which he sold to Mr Wilkinson for sheep farming. During negotiations he said that, if the land were worked properly, he believed it would carry 2,000 sheep. Neither Mr Bisset nor anyone else had ever farmed sheep on that land, and Mr Wilkinson knew this. The land turned out to be incapable of carrying anything like 2,000 sheep. When Mr Bisset sued for the unpaid balance of the price, Mr Wilkinson claimed rescission for misrepresentation.
Legal principle
The Privy Council held that there was no misrepresentation. In the circumstances, the statement was one of honest opinion, not of fact. Mr Bisset had no special knowledge of the land's capacity for sheep farming, as it had never been used for that purpose, and Mr Wilkinson knew this, so he was in as good a position as Mr Bisset to form a judgment. An honestly held opinion is not a misrepresentation, even if it turns out to be wrong. The position might be different where the person giving the opinion has special knowledge, because the statement may then imply that facts exist to justify it.
Related cases on misrepresentation
- Attwood v Small (1838) 6 Cl & F 232
- Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525
- Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
- Dimmock v Hallett (1866) LR 2 Ch App 21
- Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459
- Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
- Howard Marine & Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
