FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2017)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,671 times | Saved to 60 briefcases
Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177


Seller of New Zealand land told Buyer the carrying capacity for sheep. The capacity was seen to be less after sale. Buyer denied payment.
Seller sued.


A statement of opinion/belief is not the same as a statement of fact, so an opinion which turns out to have been unjustified will not amount to misrepresentation.

When the facts are known to both parties.


Sellers were not intended to be a serious representation, qualified by any knowledge.
Known to both the parties at the time of contracting: Seller had not used the land for sheep farming, thus any statement as to the capacity would surely be an estimate; facts are equally well known to both parties.

Also, Buyer (D) failed to prove that the farm if properly managed was not capable of being occupied by two thousand sheep.


Privy Council:
Appeal allowed in favour of Appellant/Seller.


The trial judge (Sim J.) gave judgment for Plaintiff.
On appeal the Court of Appeal reversed the decision: judgment given for Respondent on the claim and counterclaim, the contract being rescinded, and the case remitted for inquiries.

Plaintiff-Seller v Defendant-Buyer --> P-S
Appellant-Buyer v Respondent-Seller --> A-B
Appellant-Seller v Respondent-Buyer --> A-S

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.