Case Law

BehindTheScenes

Hey, Can anyone break this down for me?

Parties involved, Year, ?, ?, ?

Supermacs Ireland v. Katesan & Sweeney, [2000] 4 IR 273

Thanks.

hullaballoo

Usually, party v party [year] volume number, journal/reports, page number.

You may need to google for a list of journal/reports abbreviations.

BehindTheScenes

Thanks Hullaballoo.


Have a bit of a problem. I have to present this case in class in the next few days. It's not coming up though in this format though in Westlaw.

Supermacs Ireland v. Katesan & Sweeney, [2000] 4 IR 273.

Here's the problem, using Westlaw I am getting 5 cases with different years and journal. How do I know what the correct one is?

Thanks.

NUTLEY BOY

The case is SUPERMACS IRELAND LIMITED and PATRICK McDONAGH
Plaintiffs

and

KATESAN (NAAS) LIMITED and PATRICK SWEENEY


Follow this link for the original High Court decision of Macken J. : http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1999/130.html

Follow this link for the Supreme Court decision : http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2000/17.html

fmcdaid

hi ye,

god its soo hard to find this case?

will any body please help me to find this case?

"Provincial Bank of Ireland v. Donnell, (1932) 67 ILTR 142"

thanks so must!!

dermot_sheehan

I don't know if the Irish Law Times Reports are available online and the hard copy version is very difficult to navigate.

This case is however also available at page 33 of the 1934 Northern Irish Reports, here's the digest from justis:

Advances by Bank

"In consideration of advances heretofore made or that may hereafter be made" - Construction - Consideration- No intention of making further advances -No threat of legal proceedings - Forbearance to sue.

The defendant's husband's account with plaintiff's branch Bank at L. was overdrawn and the plaintiffs had, as security for this overdraft, mortgages of two policies of insurance upon the life of the husband. One policy with which the case was concerned was subject to a yearly premium of £24 12s. , payable in two equal moieties. The plaintiffs subsequently required the husband to obtain security for the payment of the premiums, and on the 7th November, 1924, the defendant signed a document not under seal which provided that in consideration of advances heretofore made or that might hereafter be made from time to time by the plaintiffs to her husband she undertook to pay the premiums. It was also provided that in the event of the Bank having to pay the premiums or any other sums necessary for keeping on foot the policy, the defendant should pay such sums on demand with interest at Irish Banks' current rate. It was admitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that their anxiety was to secure the overdraft and that they had no intention of making any further advance to the plaintiff's husband. The defendant was not at any time informed as to the state of her husband's account or that the plaintiffs would not make advances to her husband. On 2nd January, 1931, the defendant at the request of the plaintiffs signed a second guarantee which was simply a renewal, which the defendant was told would make no change in her obligations. The plaintiffs had not threatened to take proceedings against the defendant's husband when the first guarantee was signed, and they did not do so subsequently, and "there was no talk about an agreement not to sue." The first default of the defendant's husband was in respect of the premium payable in December, 1931. This was paid by the defendant on 13th January, 1932. Further default occurred in respect of the June and December, 1932, premiums, and ultimately, these together with a sum for overdue charges were aid by the plaintiffs who sought to recover them by civil bill. Held , by the Court of Appeal (Andrews and Best, L.JJ.), that there as no sufficient consideration to support the guarantee because, (a ) as regards past advances the agreement could not be construed as a forbearance to sue; and, (b ) as regards future advances the agreement only amounted to an indication on the part of the plaintiffs that they might make further advances to the debtor, but there was no agreement binding them to do so, and as no advance had in fact been made, the undertaking of the defendant failed for want of consideration.

Provincial Bank of Ireland, Ltd. v. Donnell
[C. A., N.I.]
[1934] N.I. 33; 67 I. L. T. R. 142; [1933] L. J. Ir. 119 [1934] N.I. 33

fmcdaid

thanks so mush really appreciate it!

NuimGuy2009

Is that for 1st year contract law? I was out on friday what are we meant to do??

Tom Young

It's really important to be able to source case law yourself as a student or indeed practitioner. There are times when cases are not available, but these are rare enough.

fmcdaid

in class he asked some people to find a case in line and answer some questions on it. he only asked 5 people so relax! he also discussed more cases, to do with like offer and consiteration and all that.

BehindTheScenes

Thanks for all the help.