Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

Mey v. Simpson

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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: Phillips

Simpson

Respondent Counsel: H. A. Burbidge

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Sale of Land / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 14 October 1908

(1908) 42 SCR 230

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.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

DeLasalle v. Guildford (1901) 2 K.B. 215

Case cited

Mey v. Simpson (1908) 42 S.C.R. 230

Case cited

Court of Appeal for Manitoba 17 Man. R. 597

Case cited

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.