docfiles.Bisset_v_Wilkinson Maven / Gradle / Ivy

Go to download
Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 is a leading English contract law case on the subject of misrepresentation, establishing that a fairly given opinion cannot amount to a misrepresentation.[1][2][3]Mr Wilkinson and Mr Bisset entered into a contract in May, 1919, whereby Mr Bisset would purchase two adjoining blocks of land called Homestead and Hogan’s, in Avondale, Northern Southland, New Zealand.[4] The two blocks comprised 2062 and 348 acres (1.41 km2) respectively, the two parties reaching agreement, for NZ₤13,260 (approximately $1.2 million in 2013). During negotiations Mr Wilkinson stated "that with a good six horse team, his idea was that the farm would carry 2,000 sheep". After 2 years of unsuccessful farming, it was realized that the land could not hold 2000 sheep, and the claimant (Mr Bisset) brought an action for misrepresentation to cancel the contract and get his deposit back.[5]The Privy Council advised that the statements made by Mr Wilkinson were not intended to be a serious representation, qualified by any knowledge. It was known to both the parties at the time of contracting that the defendant had not used the land for sheep farming, and thus any statement as to the capacity would surely be an estimate. Lord Merrivale stated that important considerations were the ‘material facts of the transaction, the knowledge of the parties respectively, and their relative positions, the words of representation used, and the actual condition of the subject-matter spoken of…’ Then he said,In addition, it was noted that the ‘defendants failed to prove that the farm if properly managed was not capable of being occupied by two thousand sheep.’Viscount Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Phillimore and Lord Carson agreed.This result can be contrasted with other situations where one party has specialist knowledge of the subject, as in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon.[7] Equally, if the opinion is one which - in all the circumstances - is unreasonable, then it may be seen as an active misrepresentation, as in Smith v Land & House Property Corp.[8]