Bisset v Wilkinson (1927) Facts: - The claimant sought to purchase a lot of land in New Zealand for the purpose of sheep farming. - During the purchasing process the claimant informed the defendant of the purpose of the purchase and entailed that he needed this land to sustain 2000 sheep. - Following the purchase, the claimant came to the realisation that the land could not sustain 2000 sheep. - The claimant then wished to rescind the contract with the defendant on the grounds of misrepresentation. Held: - It was held that the defendant's statement of the capacity of the land was nothing more than an opinion, based on the knowledge that the defendant has on farming. - The statement was therefore held to not be representation at all. - Furthermore, within negotiations the defendant could not demonstrate that the land was not capable of carrying 2000 sheep; only an estimation can be made. - Contract could not be rescinded. Application: - The claimant in this case was also given false information in regards to the nature of the land. Dimmock v Hallett [1866] Facts: - The claimant, Hallett won a bid at an auction a piece of land, but later discovered that it was not "very fertile and improbable", as was stated by the defendant upon selling of the land. - Hallett sued on the grounds of misrepresentation. Held: - Courts held that the description was a "mere flourishing description", which should not be taken as representation or fact. - Here, it was shown that a 'mere puff' or 'flourishment' does not give rights to legal rights if or when they prove to be inaccurate. Application:
- Similar to the scenario, the land was sold off to a buyer who was told that it was 'very fertile' tt"uncommonly fertile"), with this not being true. Smith v Land and House Property Corporation [1884] Facts: - The claimant purchased a hotel, whereby the defendant claimed that the tenant was ‘most desirable'. - In actuality, the tenant was in arrears and was on the verge of bankruptcy, making him most likely to not be able to pay rent. Held: - It was held by courts that the statement was not one of opinion. The defendant was fully aware of the tenant and their business practices to be able to state whether they were a desirable tenant or not. Furthermore, the claimant also knew that large amounts of rent were owing from the tenant and therefore, the statement as to the tenant's quality was false. - The statement constituted a misrepresentation and the contract could be rescinded. Application: - "Ben kept quiet about this situation" - Both defendants had knowledge of the false statements but neither brought this knowledge forward.