Hypothetical legal situation

flogen

This is an honest hypothetical situation regarding Irish law; generally contracts and signed agreements..

Let's say you're asked to sign an agreement or binding contract which is packed with legaleese and very hard to understand from a layman POV; if you asked for an explanation from the person asking you to sign the sheet (Let's call them A), and they purposely (or otherwise) explained the details in an incorrect fashion, would that contract be void? In other words, would the contract technically have been signed under false pretenses, or is it up to the individual to ensure that whatever they sign they understand? So if I sign something and don't realise that it ties me into a certain arrangement, that's my problem... and would there be a case to sue someone who explained the details falsely if it could be proven that they did so vindictively rather than out of their own ignorance?

Just wondering as I'm sure many contracts, especially in high-turnover, student friendly jobs like retail are signed without being read and at the same time are being signed under false pretenses

Thirdfox

Read movie contracts... mentions a lot of "exploitation" :eek:

I think McDermott says in Contract Law that a misrepresentation made by A to B in a contract can result in the contract being void. Not sure what page... but the answer's definitely in there!

mountainyman

The answer is yes.

I often see people on the work forum saying things like : 'If you've signed a contract then that's it' and so on.

This is not true. Where a contract is unfair and especially where the explanation given is not accurate the courts will effectively remake the contract to make it fair. Or rather to make it 'standard'.

This is especially true where there is a big difference in the power of the parties.
You v ESB or You v Your Employer etc.


MM

padser

yup pretty much as mountainyman said. If the contract is misrepresented to you then technically you do have a way out of it. However you are going to have problems in practice, firstly you need to convince the judge to allow in parole evidence (evidence not in contract) and secondly if you had ample time and oppertunity to read the contract (not understanding legaleese probably wouldnt affect this-no dividend for stupidity) this will mitagate against even a misrepresentation.

So basically im sitting right bang plum on the middle of the fence.

Victor

padser wrote:

not understanding legaleese probably wouldnt affect this-no dividend for stupidity

You may use stupidity, but you may not abuse it. :mad:

There is a case where a laundry had a condition that they were not responsible for damage to buttons. The customer queried if this applied to some other part of her garment (might have been some ornament or strap). The assistant said that the condition would not apply as it wasn't a button.

The garment was damaged, the customer sued and won. The facts of the case were that they wouldn't have won without the assistant's clarification.

Sangre

Yes she entered the contract under false pretenses i.e misrepresentation which can make a contract void/voidable or deny the equitable remedies.
So if someone lies to you about the contract then it probably would be void unless its reasonable of you to not have believed it or read the contract or something..

Eru

I'm going the other way. As an adult you are responsible for all agreements you enter into.

What went between the parties verbally is not the binding aspect of the contract. the bind is within the written and signed aspect.

The cleaner situation does not apply as there was not an individual unique contract between the two and no agreement was signed. A sign on a wall does not make a contract as has been proven time and time again.

As the popular saying goes, read the small print.

On the other hand, even if the verbal aspect could be taken as part of the contract, how is this proven? Could a decision really be made that finds in your favour over another equal party that has a signed contract in their hands?

mountainyman

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

I'm going the other way. As an adult you are responsible for all agreements you enter into.
What went between the parties verbally is not the binding aspect of the contract. the bind is within the written and signed aspect

Bank of Ireland v McManamy

McManamys were farmers in a co- op the co-op manager told them that certain documents were order forms for various items. These documents were bank guarantees.

Were the McManamys liable to pay the guarantees?

They were not liable the gap between what they believed and what they signed was too great.

An extreme case I know but it does illustrate the point.
So Karlitosway your move.

MM

Thirdfox

No need to get personal everyone... aren't we just talking about a hypothetical situation?

MM how do you fight racism by buying Irish bacon???

Sangre

Misrepresentation will make a contract void or voidable.

Colthurst v La Touche
McCracken stated that you must show a representation of fact, that the representation was untrue and that the plaintiffs were induced to enter into the contract by reason of the representation.

Since entering into a contract is often not a single event but rather a process of negotiation Tipping J in Briess v Wolly stated 'any misrep. materially influencing a party along that cotinuum is in my view capable of being a misrepresentation inducing that party to enter into the contract.'

mountainyman

Thirdfox wrote:

No need to get personal everyone... aren't we just talking about a hypothetical situation?

MM how do you fight racism by buying Irish bacon???

Karlitosway that was meant to be jokey; if it wasn't apologise.
Buying Irish bacon is a way for new immigrants to show their patriotism. We can all join together to build an Ireland of mutual respect.
BY BUYING BACON.

MM

Eru

mountainyman wrote:

Karlitosway that was meant to be jokey; if it wasn't apologise.
Buying Irish bacon is a way for new immigrants to show their patriotism. We can all join together to build an Ireland of mutual respect.
BY BUYING BACON.

MM

Im lost, which was a joke? Yours of Foxes comments????

As for the case in point, I can accept case law however why then did I stump up 2 grand for a solicitor when I bought my house????? :mad:

Victor

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

A sign on a wall does not make a contract as has been proven time and time again.

O rly?

rsynnott

mountainyman wrote:

Buying Irish bacon is a way for new immigrants to show their patriotism. We can all join together to build an Ireland of mutual respect.
BY BUYING BACON.

MM

Well, except for the Muslim ones.

mountainyman

rsynnott wrote:

Well, except for the Muslim ones.

Muslim immigrants can just buy extra butter. If they won't buy Irish Bacon OR Butter they know where the door is.
They can also buy Irish bacon (excuse me BUY IRISH BACON) and just not eat it themselves.

MM