Mey v. Simpson
- Citation
- (1908) 42 SCR 230
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 14 October 1908
- Posture
- Sale of Land / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 14 October 1908
- Posture
- Sale of Land / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The statement that the land was 'fairly good for farming' was an expression of opinion, not a factual warranty; therefore no actionable misrepresentation existed and the trial non-suit was correctly entered; the appeal is dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba affirming non-suit upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Trial judge's order of non-suit affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
Mey
Appellant Counsel: PhillipsSimpson
Respondent Counsel: H. A. Burbidge03
Procedural history
Posture
Sale of Land / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the statement that the lands were 'fairly good for farming' amounted to an actionable misrepresentation or merely an expression of opinion
- 02
Whether the plaintiff could recover damages for alleged misrepresentations leading to purchase of land
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Defendant represented the wild lands as fairly good for farming; plaintiff relied on that representation; a large portion was unfarmable; plaintiff sought damages for misrepresentation.
- Respondent
- Statements were mere opinions, not warranties or factual representations; defendant had not inspected the lands and did not assert he had; precedent DeLasalle v. Guildford dictates no actionable misrepresentation.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
DeLasalle v. Guildford (1901) 2 K.B. 215 and common law on misrepresentation
A statement of opinion does not constitute a warranty or actionable misrepresentation absent a representation of fact.
- 02
Common law principle applied by Court of Appeal for Manitoba and affirmed by Supreme Court of Canada in Mey v. Simpson (1908) 42 S.C.R. 230
To recover damages for deceit there must be a false representation of fact or an inducement to contract based on such a false factual statement.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The statement that the land was 'fairly good for farming' was an expression of opinion, not a factual warranty; therefore no actionable misrepresentation existed and the trial non-suit was correctly entered; the appeal is dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Court followed DeLasalle v. Guildford as controlling authority on opinion versus warranty
- The defendant had not inspected the lands and did not represent that he had
- Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court without calling on respondent's counsel to argue
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba affirming non-suit upheld.
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Trial judge's order of non-suit affirmed
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 14 October 1908
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 14 October 1908
Mey v. Simpson Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1908-10-14 Report (1908) 42 SCR 230 Judges Fitzpatrick, Charles; Girouard, Désiré; Davies, Louis Henry; Maclennan, James; Duff, Lyman Poore On appeal from Manitoba Subjects Sale Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Mey v. Simpson, (1908) 42 S.C.R. 230 Date: 1908-10-14 Mey v. Simpson. 1908: October 14. Present: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Girouard, Davies, Maclennan and Duff JJ. Sale of land—Misrepresentation—Deceit—Contract—Warranty. APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba[1], affirming the judgment of Cameron J., at the trial, which ordered a non-suit to be entered. The defendant, on negotiations for the sale of wild lands, represented to the plaintiff's, appellant's, agent, that they were fairly good for farming. He had not seen the lands and did not state that he had done so. It turned out that a large portion of the lands was not good enough for farming purposes. By the judgment appealed from it was held that the plaintiff could not succeed in his action for the recovery of damages by reason of the defendant's misrepresentations, which should be considered merely as expressions of opinion not amounting to a warranty. DeLasalle v. Guildford [2] was followed. On the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, after hearing counsel on behalf of the appellant and without calling upon counsel for the respondent for any argument, the court dismissed the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. Phillips for the appellant. H. A. Burbidge for the respondent. [1] 17 Man. R. 597. [2] (1901) 2 K.B. 215.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.