After 2 years of unsuccessful farming, Wilkison concluded that the land could not support 2,000 sheep, and he brought an action for misrepresentation to cancel the contract and get his money back.

At the time of the deal, both parties understood that Bisset had not used the land for sheep farming, and thus any statement as to the farmland's capacity would only be an estimate.

Giving the leading judgment, Lord Merrivale stated that important considerations were the 'material facts of the transaction, the knowledge of the respective parties and their relative positions, the words of representation used, and the actual condition of the subject-matter spoken of …’.

[9]In addition, Lord Merrivale noted that Wilkinson had "failed to prove that the farm (if properly managed) was incapable of being occupied by two thousand sheep".

By contrast, in situations where one party has specialist knowledge of the subject (so that his "opinion" is one which is effectively a "statement of fact") then the misstatement becomes an actionable misrepresentation, as in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon,[11] and in Smith v Land & House Property Corp.[12]