Bisset v Wilkinson & Anor

Bisset v Wilkinson & Anor [1926] UKPC 1 (20 July 1926)

Present at the Hearing:

VISCOUNT DUNEDIN.
LORD ATKINSON.
LORD PHILLIMORE.
LORD CARSON.
LORD :MERRIVALE.

[Delivered by LORD MERRIVALE.]

The appellant in this litigation brought his action in the Supreme Court of New Zealand to recover a sum of money payable to him under an agreement for sale and purchase of land. The defendants by way of defence and counterclaim alleged misrepresentation by the appellant in a material particular as to the character and quality of the land in question and claimed rescission of the agreement with consequential relief or alternatively damages for fraudulent misrepresentation or breach of warranty. Upon the trial of the action judgment was given for the plaintiff on the claim and the counterclaim. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand, by a majority, set aside the judgment of the trial judge and decreed rescission of the contract between the parties with consequential relief as prayed. The appellant claims to have the judgment of the Supreme Court reinstated.

The contract between the parties was an agreement in writing made in May, 191 9, whereby the respondents agreed for the purchase by them of two adjoining blocks of land at Avondale, in the Southern Island of New Zealand, called" Homestead" and" Hogan's," containing respectively 2,062 acres and 348 acres or thereabouts, for £1 3,260 10s.; £2,000 payable-and it ,vas in fact paid-on the signing of the agreement, and the balance payable in May, 1924, interest to be paid half-yearly in the meantime. The lands in question formed parts of an area of 5,225 acres which the appellant had bought in 1907 and after sundry works of reclamation and improvement had in 1911 subdivided for sale. He sold lots containing 1,500 acres and upwards, 964 acres, 350 acres, and Hogan's block of about 348 acres, retaining the Homestead block of 2,400 acres which he used for his business of a sheep-farmer and sheep dealer until 1919-during the war under some difficulties with regard to labour. Hogan's block was thrown on the appellant's hands by failure of the purchaser to complete, and in September, 1918, on the breakdown of a provisional arrangement which the appellant had made with another intending purchaser, he resumed his occupation of it. During the spring and summer, September, 1918, to April, 1919, the appellant carried out renewal work and stocked part of Hogan's block with young sheep, and in May he made his agreement for sale of the combined areas to the respondents. who had agreed upon a partnership as farmers.

Sheep-farming was the purpose for which the respondents purchased the lands of the plaintiff. One of them had no experience of farming. The other had been…