What is the core rule in Bisset v. Wilkinson?

An honest statement of opinion, when both sides have similar knowledge, is not a misrepresentation. It cannot justify rescission unless the opinion disguises false facts.

Why did the Privy Council restore the trial court’s decision?

Because the seller’s statement about carrying 2,000 sheep was his honest opinion. The buyers knew the land’s condition and failed to prove the land could not carry that number if managed properly.

What if the opinion comes from an expert?

If the speaker has special knowledge or expertise, their ‘opinion’ may imply facts. Then it can be treated as a representation of fact and may lead to liability.

Did the buyers rely on a false statement of fact?

No. They inspected the farm and knew its carrying capacity history. The court found no false factual claim—only an honestly held estimate.

Bisset v. Wilkinson

Q: How does the case help students in contract law?

It draws a clear line between opinion and fact. If a reasonable person with the same knowledge could also hold that opinion, it is not actionable misrepresentation.

CASE_TITLE: Bisset v. Wilkinson PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: misrepresentation, opinion, contract SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Privy Council, New Zealand, rescission PUBLISH_DATE: 25-10-2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India Slug: bisset-v-wilkinson

Quick Summary

This case draws a bright line: an honest estimate or opinion is not a false statement of fact. The seller said the land could carry about 2,000 sheep. Both sides knew the land’s situation. The buyers later struggled and tried to undo the deal, calling that estimate a misrepresentation. The Privy Council said no—because it was a genuine opinion, not a deceitful fact-claim, and the buyers had equal knowledge and inspection.

Issues

Is the seller liable for misrepresentation based on his estimate of carrying capacity?
Can the seller recover interest due under the written sale agreement?

Rules

An honest opinion, fairly held, is not a misrepresentation—especially where both parties have similar access to the facts. If a reasonable person with the same knowledge could also hold that view, the label “opinion” protects against rescission.

However, if the speaker’s “opinion” is one no reasonable person could hold on the known facts—or if it implies false facts—then rescission for misrepresentation may be available.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline illustration for Bisset v. Wilkinson

1907–1911: Seller (Bisset) buys, improves, and subdivides land at Avondale, New Zealand.

1918–1919: Interim buyer fails; Bisset resumes sheep farming. Purpose of land: sheep farming.

May 1919: Written sale agreement for two blocks. Deposit paid; balance due by May 1924; interest half-yearly.

Seller’s estimate: States the farm could carry about 2,000 sheep—as his opinion based on experience.

Buyers’ conduct: They inspect, buy, start farming, and later face difficulties; seek time extensions.

Change of use: Sheep farming becomes unprofitable; buyers change operations and resist interest payment, alleging misrepresentation.

Trial: Trial court sides with seller: statement was an honest opinion.

Appeal: Court of Appeal leans toward rescission. Seller appeals further.

Privy Council (1927): Restores trial court decision; buyers fail to prove the land could not carry the sheep if properly managed.

Arguments

Appellant (Seller)

The 2,000-sheep figure was a sincere opinion, not a factual guarantee.
Buyers inspected and knew the land’s condition and past carrying levels.
Interest is due under the contract; no grounds for rescission.

Respondents (Buyers)

The capacity statement induced the purchase and was relied upon.
Actual operations showed the farm could not carry 2,000 sheep.
Therefore, the contract should be rescinded; interest denied.

Judgment

Appeal allowed. The Privy Council reversed the Court of Appeal and restored the trial court’s order. The seller’s statement was a genuine opinion honestly held. The buyers, having inspected and known the facts, did not prove that the land—if properly managed—could not carry the stated number. Interest under the contract was therefore payable.

Ratio Decidendi

Where parties share similar knowledge and access to facts, a seller’s honest estimate about capacity is treated as opinion, not fact. Such an opinion does not amount to misrepresentation unless it implies false facts or is one that a reasonable person could not hold on the same information.

Why It Matters

Clarifies the opinion–fact divide in contract formation.
Promotes fair dealings where estimates are honestly shared.
Guides buyers: do due diligence; do not rely blindly on sales talk.

Key Takeaways

Opinion ≠ Fact

Honest opinion, with shared knowledge, will not ground rescission.

Inspect & Verify

Buyers who inspect share responsibility for risk and outcomes.

Expert Caveat

“Opinions” from an expert may imply facts and attract liability.

Burden of Proof

Party alleging misrepresentation must show falsity or unreasonableness.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: BISSET = “B-IS-SET” — Belief Is Sincere, So Except from Tort.

Belief: Was it an honest belief or estimate?
Information parity: Did both sides know the same key facts?
Sense check: Would a reasonable person hold this view?

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is the seller’s estimate a misrepresentation that allows rescission?

Rule

Honest opinion with shared knowledge is not a false statement of fact.

Application

Buyers inspected; no proof the land could not carry 2,000 with proper management.

Conclusion

No misrepresentation; contract stands; interest payable.

Glossary

Misrepresentation: A false statement of fact inducing a contract.
Opinion: A belief or estimate; not actionable unless it implies false facts or special knowledge.
Rescission: Undoing a contract and returning parties to pre-contract positions.