ABSTRACT
An actionable misrepresentation is a false statement of some specific existing fact or past event. A statement of intention is capable of being a statement of existing fact because as Bowen LJ remarked in Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) ‘The state of a man’s mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion.’ In that case company directors raised capital from the public by stating that the money would be used to expand the business. In reality the main purpose in raising money by the issue of the debenture was to pay off debts. The Court of Appeal held this representation to be a fraudulent misrepresentation of fact. In general, however the rule remains that a statement as to what one will do in the future which is false is not misrepresentation unless it is a wilful lie
If the opinion is not honestly held there will be an actionable misrepresentation of fact. Indeed if the representor possesses special knowledge or skill in relation to the subject-matter or is in a stronger position to know the truth, then a statement expressed as an opinion may be held to be an implied misrepresentation of fact (Smith v Land and House Property Corporation (1884)). Where by contrast the representor has no special knowledge, and the representee is in an equal position to the representor to verify the representation then, and the representation is honestly made the courts will not hold a representation which turns out to be false to be an actionable misrepresentation. A good example of such a case is Bisset v Wilkinson (1927), where the owner of a farm estimated to a prospective buyer that he thought it could support 2,000 sheep. In this case the farm had never been used previously to raise sheep and the statement was held to be of opinion rather than a statement of fact.
