Legal Case Summary
Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177
Whether a statement is one of fact or opinion for the purposes of rescinding a contract
Facts
The defendant in this matter was the purchaser of land in New Zealand which was purchased by the claimant for the purpose of sheep farming. The appeal, to which this judgment relates, is on the defendant’s counterclaim. During the purchase process, the claimant informed the defendant that the land being purchased was capable of sustaining 2000 sheep. However, after the purchase the defendant discovered that this was only possible if very careful land management was carried out, and that the land as it stood could not sustain this number of sheep. The defendant therefore sought to rescind the contract on the basis that the claimant’s statement was a misrepresentation.
Issues
The issue in this circumstance was whether the statement made by the claimant could be considered a statement of fact in terms of being a representation, or whether it was simply an opinion held by the claimant.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that the claimant’s statement was nothing more than an opinion as to the capacity of the land, based on the claimant’s knowledge of farming, together with the defendant’s knowledge of the current stock. The statement was not therefore held to be a representation. In any event, the defendant had not been able to demonstrate that the land was not capable of carrying the 2000 sheep that the claimant had stated, and therefore the claimant’s appeal was allowed and the contract could not be rescinded.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the facts, issue, and outcome of Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177, a Privy Council decision on appeal from New Zealand. The legal principle it illustrates — that a statement of opinion does not constitute an actionable misrepresentation — remains good law in England and Wales and continues to be applied by the courts. The distinction between statements of fact and statements of opinion remains a central element of the law of misrepresentation, and the case is still regularly cited in this context alongside later authorities such as Smith v Land and House Property Corporation (1884) 28 Ch D 7, which established that a statement of opinion may carry an implied representation of fact where the representor has superior knowledge.
One point of clarification worth noting: the article describes the parties as "claimant" and "defendant," though the original proceedings used the terminology of "plaintiff" and "defendant" consistent with the practice of the time. This is not a legal inaccuracy but readers should be aware when consulting the original report. There have been no statutory or case law developments that undermine or substantially alter the principle illustrated by this case.
