Case No.: AC.APP-6-1957 Court: Court of Appeal Issue No.: 1961 Principles · Tort—Misrepresentation—Statement of a seller of his opinion concerning goods sold is a representation of fact · Tort—Misrepresentation—Honest but Incorrect opinion of a seller concerning goods sold may be actionable if made recklessly without adequate basis in fact * Court: M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. and M. I. EI Nur J. Plaintiff who wished to buy seed was told by the Inspector of Agriculture that one kind of seed was better in quality than the one he asked for. Relying on this, plaintiff bought the seed urged by the Inspector; they were worse in quality. Inspector, relying on the opinion of the suppliers, had conducted no experiments, nor had he seen the importers’ report. Plaintiff sued and recovered for misrepresentation. The Attorney-General appealed on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture on grounds that the misrepresentation was opinion not fact, and innocent, and therefore not actionable. Held: (i) A statement by a seller of his opinion as to the capa of a thing sold is a representation of fact. (ii) When a seller recklessly makes a false statement of opinion positively, as of known facts, concerning the capacity of goods sold, supposing his representation to be true, but having no adequate I or experiment on which to base such a belief, and thereby induces a buyer to act on the statement, the false statement is actionable Judgment (CURT OF APPEAL) SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. ABDEL RAHMAN EL AKlB AC.APP-6-1957 . M. I. El Nur J. April 25, I957:—I do not think this application for leave to appeal has any merits. It is clear from the evidence that the Inspector of Agriculture represented to respondent that the American (Washington) berseem seed they had for sale was better than the berseem Higazi respondent asked for. It is also clear that respondent was greatly influenced by that representation, and relied on the advice of the Inspector of Agriculture, so much so that he accepted to buy the American seed at a higher price than that of the Higazi because the American seed was represented to him t be better than the Higazi. The Department of Agriculture did not experiment on the American seeds which were represented to them by the Gun5on (Seeds) Co. of the United Kingdom to be of a superior and guaranteed quality. They relied on the description given to them by the suppliers. The Inspector of Agriculture relying on that guarantee by the suppliers said the American seeds were better than the Higazi. That representation which was certainly material had induced respondent to enter into the contract of sale. It is true that the Inspector made that representation believing in its truth since he relied on what the suppliers said about the superiority of the American seeds. Therefore, though the misrepresentation was incorrect, yet, being material and having induced the formation of the contract o sale, it did amount to a warranty the breach of which entitled respondent to claim and receive damages. I therefore agree with the learned Judge of the High Court on the eligibility of respondent for damages. Unfortunately because applicant’s counsel was overwhelmed by the question of whether the misrepresentation of the Inspector, being innocent or merely amounting to an expression of opinion, did not entitle respondent to claim damages at all, he did not deal or dispute the quantum of damages as claimed by respondent, and for that reason the court granted respondent the damages as calculated by him. Personally I do not think applicants will succeed and if the Honourable Chief Justice holds the same opinion he may wish to dismiss this application summarily. M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. May 8, 1957:—This is an application for revisi0 by the Attorney-General on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture against the decree of the Judge of the High Court awarding the respondent damages and costs amounting to £S.425.150m/ms On the facts found by the court, counsel for the Attorney-General submits (a) that the representation was true, but (b) even if it was not true, it was innocent, and therefore no damages would be payable to the respondent. The evidence as disclosed in the record shows that Washington Higazi Berseem is inferior to the Egyptian Higazi Berseem. The Inspector of Agriculture (defence witness No. 2) admits in cross- examination that the quality of berseem seed which yields more is much better than the other. He further admits that the Egyptian Higazi gives more crop than the Washington variety. He also admits that respondent’s land is good. The evidence of plaintiff and his witness show that this witness told them that the Washington seed was superior to that of the Egyptian Higazi and that the price was more. There is no doubt that the misrepresentation made by the Inspector of Agriculture induced the respondent to buy the Washington seed. The question now arises as to whether the representation was innocent or fraudulent. Counsel for the Attorney-General submits that the Inspector of Agriculture expressed an opinion honestly and that his statement did not relate to facts. In law, a representation that a particular opinion is entertained is a representation of fact, and a statement of opinion may involve a statement of fact. The Inspector of Agriculture stated, as proved by plaintiff and his witness, that Washington seed is superior to the Egyptian Higazi. This statement relates to a fact. Is such a statement fraudulent in the legal sense? In my view, yes. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made without belief in its truth or recklessly. At least the statement made by the Inspector was reckless. He did not care to know whether t was true or not. No test as is usual in such cases was made as to the percentage of germination. of the Washington seed which was brought Into the country for the first time. He did not even see the report of the importing company as to purity or germination. A person who expresses an opinion must show that he knows something which justifies it. In this particular case D.W. 2 failed to show that he was relying on solid information which justified the statement be made to plaintiff. No contention was made as to the quantum of damages and I cannot express an opinion about them. The application is summarily dismissed.