<P> In some cases, a claim for misrepresentation in contract, may also in parallel, be grounds for an action for deceit in tort, which has different rules and may be advantageous in some circumstances . </P> <P> Though a statement of opinion is generally not actionable as a misrepresentation, by giving an opinion a party may be held to have represented that they had better knowledge about certain facts . For instance in Smith v Land and House Property Corporation Bowen LJ held that Mr Smith could not enforce a contract against LHP to buy his property, because he had advertised that the current tenant, Mr Fleck, was "most desirable". In fact, as Mr Smith knew, Mr Fleck had been missing his rent payments and was then declared bankrupt . So even though "most desirable" is an evaluative statement it is still a misrepresentation because it warrants the statement maker has good knowledge of certain facts . </P> <P> The cases seem to show that the divide between "fact" and "opinion" is partly affected by the balance of knowledge and expertise between the parties . In Bisset v Wilkinson Mr Bisset said his land in New Zealand could support 2000 sheep . Both he and Mr Wilkinson knew sheep had not been farmed before . Mr Wilkinson tried to pull out after the contract was signed, but the Privy Council advised that the statement was only one of opinion, not fact given that there was no dishonesty, and considering the "knowledge of the parties respectively, and their relative positions". In the more recent case of Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon Lord Denning MR emphasised again that knowledge of facts was crucial in being liable for a misrepresentation . Here Esso told Mr Mardon, a prospective franchisee, that its Southport petrol station would have 200,000 customers a year . In fact the projections were wrong, and so Mr Mardon was entitled to claim compensation for his losses . The distinction between Esso and Mr Bisset is that Esso was in a far better position to know what was true . </P> <P> Statements of future intention are not generally actionable representations, so that someone who fails to carry out a stated intention is not making a misrepresentation . However, a misrepresentation of one's present intention is actionable . As Bowen LJ said in Edgington v Fitzmaurice,' the state of a man's mind is just as much a fact as the state of his digestion .' So where Mr Edgington had bought shares after he heard the company was seeking capital to expand, but in reality it was to pay off debts, he was entitled to rescind his purchase . </P>

Fraud in the inducement will render an agreement void