Ordinarily assertions as to value of real property are to be regarded merely as expressions of opinion, but such statements may be so expressed or given under such conditions, as to convert them into material representations so that their falsity will warrant the purchaser in rescinding.36 A distinction has been drawn between representations as to the value of the property and representations that the property could be sold upon the market for a certain price, the latter being held to be a representation of fact distinguished from opinion.37

On an exchange of property, representations that a flat was worth $75,000.00; that the yearly rentals were $4,200; that the total annual expense of upkeep would not exceed $600; that all the apartments were rented for $65.00 per month, and all the garages at $5.00 per month; that the barn could be made into living quarters at an expense of $1,000.00; the evidence

35. Shultz v. Redondo, 156 Cal. 439, 105 Pac. 118.

36. Small v. Kennedy, 137 Ind. 299, 33 N. E. 674; Meritas v. Farley, 147 N. Y. Supp. 503; Wright v. Wright, 37 Mich. 55. The rule that the vendor has the right to praise his property and to give his opinion concerning its value cannot be extended to warrant false representations as to value and selling qualities, which may be relied upon by the purchaser and operate as an inducement to the deal. Pratt v. Allegan Circuit Judge, 177 Mich. 558.

Representations made by the vendor that the property was worth from $500 to $2,000 and that the hotel was rented to one Bair, while in fact the property was worth $250 and the lease to Bair was a mere pretense and not binding upon him, held, that false statements of value intentionally made to one who is ignorant of the quality and value of the property, is sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover the damages he has sustained. Pinch v. Hataling, 142 Mich. 522.

One Davis received a receipt from the defendant showing that Davis had paid $5,000 for a certain piece of real property. The plaintiff relied on the representation made by Davis that he had acquired the premises for $5,000, and purchased same, but having learned that in fact Davis had only paid $2,500 for the premises, brought suit to rescind the contract against the defendant, who had fraudulently given the receipt to Davis. Held, that plaintiff could rescind the contract. Stoney Creek Woolen Co. v. Smalley, 111 Mich. 322.

37. Pound v. Clum. 204 Mich. 28; Hammer v. Martin, 205 Mich. 359.

showed that all the representations as to the market value and the net income of the flats were exaggerated and untrue, the court held that after making due allowance for the real estate optimism and errors of judgment, the representations were so far out of the range of its real or market value, and that plaintiff could recover, it being unnecessary to determine whether the representations were made in good faith.38 Where a broker represented to the vendee that the vendor's price was $1,200, and that that was the lowest price for which the farm could be purchased, while in fact the price the owner had set was $900.00, the court held that if the vendee relied upon this representation, the broker is liable for the difference.39

A statement by the owner of a hotel that it is worth a certain price and that it will earn a certain sum per month, and has been earning that much for the preceding five months, if false, entitles purchaser to recover his damages.40

Representations that defendant had title to certain lots; that they were worth $400 each; that other lots in that neighborhood were selling right along for that price; and where the evidence tended to show that plaintiff had no knowledge of the value of land and told the defendant so, the court held that whether the representations as to the value of the land are mere expression of opinions, and if false, will support an action by the vendee, is a question for the jury, even though the vendee saw the property before purchasing.41 A representation made by the broker of a land owner that a certain tract of land was worth $7,000.00 and to induce the plaintiff to believe that the property was worth $7,000.00, the land owner conveyed the land to the broker, and the plaintiff, and to aid the broker in deceiving the plaintiff as to the real consideration paid received in the plaintiff's presence, the broker's check for $1,100, the plaintiff subsequently discovered the fraud practiced on him by co-grantee and the land owner, he brought

38. Hillier v. Carpenter, 206 Mich. 594.

39. Hokanson v. Oatman, 165 Mich. 512.

40. Miller v. Voorheis, 115 Mich. 356.

41. Moon v. McKinstry, 107 Mich. 668.

suit to recover the money paid by him, the court held that the false representations entitled plaintiff to recover.42