[Hagar]

Originally Posted by Karlitosway1978

Manslaughter is not common law, its clearly covered under the Non fatal offences against the person Act 1997.

Non Fatal Manslaughter? I thought I was keeping up until I read that.

[Lplated]

Re Karlito's message -
Where in the Non Fatal Act did you find an offence of 'manslaughter'? The clue is in the title 'non-fatal' - manslaughter is, (in so far as it was not incohate) a fatal offence.

There are many definitions of what the 'common law' is, but perhaps a good lay mans version is that it is that body of law not contained in legislative provisions but rather law 'as found' by a court.

[Eru]

Originally Posted by Lplated

Re Karlito's message -
Where in the Non Fatal Act did you find an offence of 'manslaughter'? The clue is in the title 'non-fatal' - manslaughter is, (in so far as it was not incohate) a fatal offence.

There are many definitions of what the 'common law' is, but perhaps a good lay mans version is that it is that body of law not contained in legislative provisions but rather law 'as found' by a court.

Originally Posted by Hagar

Non Fatal Manslaughter? I thought I was keeping up until I read that.

Well smart ass's, try looking under Section 29 or even Section 4 of said act or finding the Act you believe it falls under. I didnt name it nor did I write it.

And common law is NOT law as found by the court. what kind of a definition is that?

[Hagar]

Section 4:

4.—(1) A person who intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for life or to both.

No manslaughter there.

Section 29:

29.—Section 9 of the Criminal Law Act, 1997, is hereby amended by the substitution for paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of the following paragraph:
"(a) manslaughter, or causing serious harm with intent to do so, or".

Specifies a change to another act not the "Non Fatal Offences"

I'm still puzzled.

Please note I'm looking for enlightenment, not to take the proverbial.

[maidhc]

Originally Posted by Karlitosway1978

Manslaughter is not common law, its clearly covered under the Non fatal offences against the person Act 1997.

How did I ever manage to scrape through criminal law in undergrad, and pass a blackhall FE1 in the same subject without knowing this!

[Eru]

Oh god I give up, I really do. Look it up for youselves and then go back to topic, Im not derailing a topic over this.

Hint: No one found the crime of manslaughter in any other legislation.

[RuggieBear]

Originally Posted by seamus

OK, a cursory glance over the statute book doesn't change my position. It would appear that a 'lien' is only written in law specifically for solicitors, moneylenders and hoteliers (who may hold onto you possessions until you pay them, believe it or not).
.

was actually going to mention this as I'm working in the "Hospitality" industry. A good few time we've had to "look after" a guest's property till they have paid us what is owed. Usually luggage but we've held a car once or twice.

[maidhc]

Originally Posted by Karlitosway1978

Hint: No one found the crime of manslaughter in any other legislation.

Cause it ain't there and is a construct of the (Judge made) common law

(I think the LRC made recommendations it should be codified a few years ago, but this could be my imagination.)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Sale of Goods Act 1893 (Restatement: http://tinyurl.com/lzdj3). Part IV allows any unpaid seller to retain a lien on any goods upaid for.

[hullaballoo]

Ok, I'm going to tidy this up a bit.

Common law in simple terms refers to judge-made law. That is law that is based on decisions made by judges in the past. These precedents are referred to in court by way of citing old cases. There are a few famous cases in each area of law e.g., Donoghue v Stevenson was the bedrock case in the law of Torts. It dates back to the feudal court system, and has been retained in many areas. However, it has sometimes been changed by statute, and overruled over the years by the superior courts (which created new common law, as it were). Thus, Karlitos definition is a misinformed one.

Manslaughter was originally a common law offence, but has been codified by statute. I can't find the section at the moment, but I think Karlitos has the right act. I'll check tomorrow.

Another common law offence is endangerment.

Now, back on topic, or else start a new thread.

[hullaballoo]

Originally Posted by maidhc

Cause it ain't there and is a construct of the (Judge made) common law

(I think the LRC made recommendations it should be codified a few years ago, but this could be my imagination.)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Sale of Goods Act 1893 (Restatement: http://tinyurl.com/lzdj3). Part IV allows any unpaid seller to retain a lien on any goods upaid for.

I did mention it. I then went on to say that it probably doesn't cover this situation because the act only covers contracts for the sale of goods. A car mechanic doing repairs on a car is a contract for the sale of services.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...t=2054926065#9.

[maidhc]

Originally Posted by hullaballoo

I did mention it. I then went on to say that it probably doesn't cover this situation because the act only covers contracts for the sale of goods. A car mechanic doing repairs on a car is a contract for the sale of services.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...t=2054926065#9.

My apologies, I didn't see it.

A garage could still use it though in the form of a retention of title clause over the spare parts fitted (does Hendy lennox sound familiar??)

I think though it is generally accepted a garage has an equitable lien over a car until repair work is paid for, but I don't know of any authority for that

[hullaballoo]

Hendy Lennox was a retention of title clause around engines that had been previously incorporated into generator sets. That was specifically for the sale of goods (i.e. The engines). I don't think the facts are comparible in the lease.

Anyway, this hasn't got anything to do with retention of title - this is a possessory security measure.

He can sue under ordinary contract law to recover his debt, but I can't identify any special lien. There certainly isn't anything under the 1893 Act unless he can show that the contract was more for the sale of goods, than for the work he put in. He'd have to rely on one of Clay v Yates, Lee v Griffin or Robinson v Graves. It depends on what the courts view as being the main object of the contract (goods, or services).

[maidhc]

It is actually one of a few common law liens in this jurisdiction which an "improver" who carries out work on goods with posession can invoke. According to Courtney's book on company (p1228) the most common example is of a mechanic, but still even he refuses to give authority other than suggesting to read an book called "Bell, Modern law of personal property in England and Ireland"

What happens though when a mechanic screws up, like in Seamus' case?

[hullaballoo]

I'd say there'd be an action in quantum meruit. But by the same token, it would have to remove any right to a lien of the goods. Would he have to pay for the repair to the damage he did? Would he also have to pay for the original work to be completed?

[Victor]

Originally Posted by KatieK

Thanks guys, for all the replies. Dont come at this from a legal background, but my thinking on it was that if a garage cannot hold a vehicle pending payment, what incentive or pressure is there on any customer to ever pay a bill?

Do you want you brakes to work?