Dimmock v Hallett (1866)

•  Some land was being auctioned off
•  The advertisement for the auction described the land as having fertile and improvable land
• It was a poor -quality piece of land
• Dimmock sued on the grounds of misrepresentation
• Ruling

  The Court of Appeal held that the statement about the land being Fertile and improvable was merely a flourishing description and did not entitle the buyer to rescind
• Point of Law

  A statement of fact does not include exaggerated advertising or vague boasts