One cannot rescind or withdraw from a contract into which he was induced to enter by representations made to him, however false and fraudulent when such representations related to a matter of law, as distinguished from a matter of fact. This rule is supported partly upon the maxim that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and partly upon the consideration that one is not justified in relying upon representations made to him by another, when the truth of the matter is not within the exclusive or peculiar knowledge of either, and no fiduciary relation exists, but the sources of information are open to both. It is

8. Representations by the defendant in an exchange of real estate that his farm had the best soil, A No. 1, for the raising of all crops; that it was a heavy clay soil; that it was well worth $12,000. and that in showing plaintiff the farm defendant took him only to the best part; that defendant misrepresented the kind and condition of the farmhouse, saying it cost $3,000 to build, held insufficient to support a bill for rescission where plaintiff examined the land before purchase and was not entirely ignorant of the character of soils. Lesser v. Smith, 212 Mich. 559.

Representations by the defendant, a co-owner of land, that he had found a purchaser who would buy the entire property, and that the property was of little value, and induced his co-owner to transfer his interest to a third party whom he represented to be acting for the purchaser, but who transferred immediately to defendant's wife, held sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover damages for the fraud and false misrepresentations. Lewis v. Jacobs, 153 Mich. 665.

9. Coffee v. Newson, 2 Ga. 422.

generally considered that it is not an actionable fraud to mislead a person as to the nature or strength of his title to property, or to assert that an adverse claimant has a better title, as these are matters of law.10

A statement in regard to the legal effect of a contract or other instrument or the legal rights and legal duties of the parties under it, is not a fraudulent misrepresentation justifying relief in equity, since it relates to matter of law.11

Representations made by a Railroad Company seeking to obtain a strip of land for its lines, that they were in a position to bring condemnation proceedings, if the owner refused to give the company the right of way over her land and that they could make it expensive for her, while in fact the company had no such power and dealt with the owner, a woman, who was not familiar with business transactions, held, that the Railroad Company could not maintain an action for specific performance on the option obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.12

Sec. 207. Expressions of Opinions. - The misrepresentation must be of a material fact, and not a statement which is put forth merely as the judgment, estimate, or opinion of the party making it, or a statement which from the nature of the case, can be nothing more than opinion. Where for instance, the defendant represented that he was the owner of valuable timber land and if plaintiff would enter into an enterprise with him in taking timber from said land and put in a few hundred dollars, he would realize therefrom in 4 or 5 months, three to four thousand dollars profit, "that it was a sure thing and a good investment and could not fail in the time aforesaid to yield plaintiff large returns," it was held that the above expressions were mere matters of opinion and would not sustain an action for misrepresentation and fraud.13

In a suit to rescind a contract whereby plaintiff received in exchange for his farm, an electric light plant, and the defendant represented that only $35.00 worth of fuel per month was necessary and that the income was $90.00 per month, held

10. Driver v. White (Tenn.) 5 S. W. 994.

11. Tradesman Co. v. Superior Mfg. Co., 147 Mich. 702.

12. Grand Rapids R. R. Co. v. Stevens, 143 Mich. 646.

13. Kulesza v. Wyhomski, 213 Mich. 189.

insufficient to entitle plaintiff to rescind, where the actual cost and income was only a slight difference and to be mere expressions of opinion as to values, upon which men might fairly and honestly differ.14 Representations by the defendant that the fruit on his farm would pay for it the first year, held not to be a representation concerning a present existing fact, but a mere matter of opinion, the falsity of which would not justify a rescission.15 If in the general rule that if the parties are dealing at arms length and on equal terms, statements as to value made by the one or the other, even when not mere expressions of opinion, cannot be relied upon and they will not amount to fraud, though known to be false by the party to whom they are made.16