'Debt Collector'

bigneacy

Hi,

I am having an issue at the moment with a pseudo debt collector.

A few years back I opened a business, the business was part funded by a private investor who was to remain a silent partner. It was for a small sum - €5000. It was all very informally done - deal done on a handshake so to speak - no paperwork or the likes - I gave him a photocopy of my passport and statement of my home address to give him the reassurance. We had great hopes for the business and the future - wanted to make our fortunes - there was informal mentions of 25% ownership, hoped to double his money in a few months - the usual.

The business went south after a short while and was wound up amid some possible legal proceedings with a third party. The investor was informed of this and as far as i was concerned - cut his losses. In the meantime I signed up to a new phone contract and have changed my number.

I got an email two days ago from a amateurish email address along the lines of debtcollector1234 @ gmail.com. Saying in relation to the debt i owe of 10,000 to call a mobile number to make arrangements, "If you ignore this request our agents will pay you a visit. You have 48 hours to make contact on the number above, We have your home address and the your parents home address. If contact is not made in this time an agent will be called to these addresses.
Thank You"

Now, the address I was living at at the time of the deal is a different one to where I now live. My parents address is also different. This evening my brother gets a phonecall where a man, who would only give his first name, told him his number was very easy to find and advising that he could do this the easy way or the hard way.

My brother asked was that a threat - he said he has never threatened anyone in his life. My brother asked him several times where he got his number - he wouldn't answer, asked for his name- wouldn't give it. Asked for the company he worked for - wouldn't give it.

He openly discussed the details (details which he should never have had in the first place) of my 'debt' to my brother over the phone.

So I have a few questions

1. Do I owe a debt?
2. Do debt collectors have a legal standing in Ireland? If so, are they licensed in any way?
3. I haven't made contact back as of yet - should I do so, or just ignore?
4. What should be my next move? Solictor?
5. What should I do if phonecalls to my brother or other relatives persist?
6. What should I do if the 'debt collector' shows up on my doorstep?

drunkmonkey

You burned someone of €5,000 of course you owe a debt. Make contact with the person who lent you the money and see can you work out something with them. Get legal advice after you've been in contact with the investor.

Stercus Accidit

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You burned someone of €5,000 of course you owe a debt. Make contact with the person who lent you the money and see can you work out something with them. Get legal advice after you've been in contact with the investor.

The investor wanted 25% of the business which failed, this wasn't a lend of money, I doubt that they could get their money back, that's the nature of a failed investment.

drunkmonkey

Sounds like it was a straight forward loan of money. Lender would be entitled to chase it, might not get anywhere but still within his rights.

Email and all that is dodgy, might not even be the investor, still think its worth contacting them to find out is everything ok. I dont see how he agreed to cut his losses and then decides to chase it up after a few years. Something missing in the picture.

bigneacy

My main point is that he didn't lend me money - we never drew up any lending agreements or repayment plans. He stayed in contact over the course of the business to see how things were going, offering advice etc. certainly not in a money lenders capacity.

But he is now demanding 10,000 - its not like I have the money anyway but if it is a case of I truly owe him the money then i'll draw up a repayment plan, but it was a failed investment - my understanding is that this would indicate no debt is owed.

As to why he is chasing it now I can see by a search online that he is selling off assets (boats etc.) so that may give some indication as to why he has chosen to chase the money now.

I did some googling of the debt collector - He was a roofer/tiler up until December, sold his car, he then had an ad posted looking for an investor in a business "5k for 30%" then he had some free ads up for debt collection services.

OldmanMondeo

Investor or Loan Shark? sounds like the latter. If it was me I would pass this to the Gardai and let them deal with it.

drunkmonkey

Without any proof of any contract etc he'd have a very hard time proving you owe what is claimed or even proving he gave it to you in court. Did he give you cash or was it a bank transfer / cheque?
Either way i'd contact a solicitor for some legal advice. It was an unsecured investment, he hasn't much to go on.

bigneacy

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Investor or Loan Shark? sounds like the latter. If it was me I would pass this to the Gardai and let them deal with it.

He always represented himself to me as an investor - but I do see your point. I can't imagine the Gardai would be able to do much as at the moment its very much so a civil matter - no actual threats have been made...?

drunkmonkey

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Investor or Loan Shark? sounds like the latter. If it was me I would pass this to the Gardai and let them deal with it.

I'd say they would view that as a civil matter not a criminal one.

bigneacy

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Without any proof of any contract etc he'd have a very hard time proving you owe what is claimed or even proving he gave it to you in court. Did he give you cash or was it a bank transfer / cheque?
Either way i'd contact a solicitor for some legal advice. It was an unsecured investment, he hasn't much to go on.

Cash - the only thing he has would be the passport photocopy and proof of address - also some email correspondence back after the business failed regarding the investment.

I think i'll go to the solicitor and see what I should do - just wanted to get you guys opinion on things.

opti76

Demands for payment of debt causing alarm, etc.

11.—(1) A person who makes any demand for payment of a debt shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a) the demands by reason of their frequency are calculated to subject the debtor or a member of the family of the debtor to alarm, distress or humiliation, or

(b) the person falsely represents that criminal proceedings lie for non-payment of the debt, or

(c) the person falsely represents that he or she is authorised in some official capacity to enforce payment, or

(d) the person utters a document falsely represented to have an official character.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €1,500


just make sure he plays by the rules..

ResearchWill

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You burned someone of €5,000 of course you owe a debt. Make contact with the person who lent you the money and see can you work out something with them. Get legal advice after you've been in contact with the investor.

Really bad advice. You do not know if this was in fact a loan, if it was a loan you have no idea if the loan is over 6 years old. If the person contacts the person claiming money is owed and says yes I owe you money and will pay you, he starts the statute running again.

My advice is go to a solicitor and give all information and get proper legal opinion. As an aside I would think that as the investor/lender took a copy of your passport it sounds more like a loan. But if you take any advice on here other than seek out a solicitor or FLAC, you will end up regretting it.

mathepac

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Sounds like it was a straight forward loan of money. Lender would be entitled to chase it, might not get anywhere but still within his rights. ...

I disagree. We only have one side of the story (no disrespect to OP) but based on the information posted it was clearly not a loan but a business investment with all the attendant risks. No-one got "burned" as you so dramatically describe it.

MagicSean

If it was a loan of 5k then he would not be entitled to 10k back. So either it was a loan, in which case he could look for the 5k back or it was an investment, in which case he expected 10k but is guaranteed nothing. The op hasn't mentioned if it was a limited company or not but I expect he was a sole trader. In any case the investor would be entitled to his share of what was left when the business closed.

If someone is threatening your family then record all instances in detail and report it to the Gardaí.

Delancey

A ' partner ' , silent or otherwise would be expected to invest in a start-up business as opposed to making a loan.
Sounds like an investment that failed and he should put it down to experience , possibly this ' investor ' has financial worries of his own now and is chancing his arm ?
Legal advice ( not from boards.ie ) would be a wise move.

pirelli

bigneacy wrote: »

Hi,

I am having an issue at the moment with a pseudo debt collector.

A few years back I opened a business, the business was part funded by a private investor who was to remain a silent partner. It was for a small sum - €5000. It was all very informally done - deal done on a handshake so to speak - no paperwork or the likes - I gave him a photocopy of my passport and statement of my home address to give him the reassurance. We had great hopes for the business and the future - wanted to make our fortunes - there was informal mentions of 25% ownership, hoped to double his money in a few months - the usual.

The business went south after a short while and was wound up amid some possible legal proceedings with a third party. The investor was informed of this and as far as i was concerned - cut his losses. In the meantime I signed up to a new phone contract and have changed my number.

I got an email two days ago from a amateurish email address along the lines of debtcollector1234 @ gmail.com. Saying in relation to the debt i owe of 10,000 to call a mobile number to make arrangements, "If you ignore this request our agents will pay you a visit. You have 48 hours to make contact on the number above, We have your home address and the your parents home address. If contact is not made in this time an agent will be called to these addresses.
Thank You"

Now, the address I was living at at the time of the deal is a different one to where I now live. My parents address is also different. This evening my brother gets a phonecall where a man, who would only give his first name, told him his number was very easy to find and advising that he could do this the easy way or the hard way.

My brother asked was that a threat - he said he has never threatened anyone in his life. My brother asked him several times where he got his number - he wouldn't answer, asked for his name- wouldn't give it. Asked for the company he worked for - wouldn't give it.

He openly discussed the details (details which he should never have had in the first place) of my 'debt' to my brother over the phone.

So I have a few questions

1. Do I owe a debt?
2. Do debt collectors have a legal standing in Ireland? If so, are they licensed in any way?
3. I haven't made contact back as of yet - should I do so, or just ignore?
4. What should be my next move? Solictor?
5. What should I do if phonecalls to my brother or other relatives persist?
6. What should I do if the 'debt collector' shows up on my doorstep?

If the person is asking for 10,000 then he might be under the impression you were going to return twice what he loaned/invested with you. It would then be more likely an investment...your might be liable. The sad thing about people like you however is he helps you out and despite you being morally and perhaps legally wrong he has to chase you through the courts.

Neither of you have any documentation explaining what the transaction involved. Your neither morally nor legally right. When you informed your 'silent investor' that the business failed, and you were broke does that mean he can never collect on his money. Are you being irresponsible?

It is no more an investment than it is a loan. There are strict rules surrounding investments, you can not promise to double someone's money that revenues will be spectacular and that the risk is minimal when the opposite is the reality.

If a publicly traded company told its shareholders that next quarter would double due to huge sales and a new merger etc the next quarter is miserable and sales fell through and their merger was never signed in as promised then they are potentially liable to compensate their shareholders. You cannot mislead an investor.

You want him to sue you for his money!! You might consider giving the person 2,500 back.

Here is an excellent example of how careful you must be in business..enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A3j2tLToYQ

PARKHEAD67

bigneacy wrote: »

He always represented himself to me as an investor - but I do see your point. I can't imagine the Gardai would be able to do much as at the moment its very much so a civil matter - no actual threats have been made...?

Gardai:P.Dont want to be waking them guys up.

Ken.

pirelli wrote: »

If the person is asking for 10,000 then he might be under the impression you were going to return twice what he loaned/invested with you. It would then be more likely an investment...your might be liable. The sad thing about people like you however is he helps you out and despite you being morally and perhaps legally wrong he has to chase you through the courts.

Neither of you have any documentation explaining what the transaction involved. Your neither morally nor legally right. When you informed your 'silent investor' that the business failed, and you were broke does that mean he can never collect on his money. Are you being irresponsible?

It is no more an investment than it is a loan. There are strict rules surrounding investments, you can not promise to double someone's money that revenues will be spectacular and that the risk is minimal when the opposite is the reality.

If a publicly traded company told its shareholders that next quarter would double due to huge sales and a new merger etc the next quarter is miserable and sales fell through and their merger was never signed in as promised then they are potentially liable to compensate their shareholders. You cannot mislead an investor.

You want him to sue you for his money!! You might consider giving the person 2,500 back.

Here is an excellent example of how careful you must be in business..enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A3j2tLToYQ

What has an American case about allegedly fraudulently selling something to someone got to do with Irish law and more particularly the o.p's situation?

ResearchWill

pirelli wrote: »

If the person is asking for 10,000 then he might be under the impression you were going to return twice what he loaned/invested with you. It would then be more likely an investment...your might be liable. The sad thing about people like you however is he helps you out and despite you being morally and perhaps legally wrong he has to chase you through the courts.

Neither of you have any documentation explaining what the transaction involved. Your neither morally nor legally right. When you informed your 'silent investor' that the business failed, and you were broke does that mean he can never collect on his money. Are you being irresponsible?

It is no more an investment than it is a loan. There are strict rules surrounding investments, you can not promise to double someone's money that revenues will be spectacular and that the risk is minimal when the opposite is the reality.

If a publicly traded company told its shareholders that next quarter would double due to huge sales and a new merger etc the next quarter is miserable and sales fell through and their merger was never signed in as promised then they are potentially liable to compensate their shareholders. You cannot mislead an investor.

You want him to sue you for his money!! You might consider giving the person 2,500 back.

Here is an excellent example of how careful you must be in business..enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A3j2tLToYQ

How can you say it sounds like an investment, and then say the OP owes the money. The very definition of an investment is that if the business fails you lose your money. If I buy €5000 in shares and in a few years the business fails I lose my investment. The person who set up the company owes me nothing.

MagicSean

ResearchWill wrote: »

How can you say it sounds like an investment, and then say the OP owes the money. The very definition of an investment is that if the business fails you lose your money. If I buy €5000 in shares and in a few years the business fails I lose my investment. The person who set up the company owes me nothing.

If you invest €5000 in shares in a business you own that portion of the business and if it is wound up and there is money left over you are entitled to your proportional share of what is remaining.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

If you invest €5000 in shares in a business you own that portion of the business and if it is wound up and there is money left over you are entitled to your proportional share of what is remaining.

I agree, but I am assuming there was nothing left over, there is also no evidence this was a limited liability company but a partnership. While the person may have rights, a blanket statement with no facts to agree to pay any amount, is bad advice.

Ken.

MagicSean wrote: »

If you invest €5000 in shares in a business you own that portion of the business and if it is wound up and there is money left over you are entitled to your proportional share of what is remaining.

In your scenario lets say €5000 gets you 25% of a business. Is the investor liable for 25% of debts when the business goes belly up.

MagicSean

lucyfur09 wrote: »

In your scenario lets say €5000 gets you 25% of a business. Is the investor liable for 25% of debts when the business goes belly up.

I'm not really to good on company law but my understanding is that if the op was operating as a sole trader with a silent partner then the partner would also be liable for debts.

pirelli

lucyfur09 wrote: »

What has an American case about allegedly fraudulently selling something to someone got to do with Irish law and more particularly the o.p's situation?

It shows the importance of Written contracts and it's a very common and basic law and just not an American one. So it is relevant.

ResearchWill wrote: »

How can you say it sounds like an investment, and then say the OP owes the money. The very definition of an investment is that if the business fails you lose your money. If I buy €5000 in shares and in a few years the business fails I lose my investment. The person who set up the company owes me nothing.

Because there is no written contract it could be anything. It could be a hybrid loan/Investment. An investor can set any terms he wishes. Should the business fail as Magic Sean stated he could be the first to get his money back before all creditors including this third party that they entered into litigation with.

An investor may place themselves in a much better position than someone who loans money if they set out terms and conditions. Also if the investor was misled then then the business would be liable.

ResearchWill wrote: »

I agree, but I am assuming there was nothing left over, there is also no evidence this was a limited liability company but a partnership. While the person may have rights, a blanket statement with no facts to agree to pay any amount, is bad advice.

The investor could claim he was entitled to be paid before all other creditors. Failing that he could likely say he was mislead by the business which gave him assurances and claimed securities they never had.

Typically Irish to shaft layman investors. They form an important part of small business and should be better represented. The purpose of the Judge Judy is to highlight the universal importance of a written contract/agreement of some kind.

ResearchWill

pirelli wrote: »

It shows the importance of Written contracts and it's a very common and basic law and just not an American one. So it is relevant.



Because there is no written contract it could be anything. It could be a hybrid loan/Investment. An investor can set any terms he wishes. Should the business fail as Magic Sean stated he could be the first to get his money back before all creditors including this third party that they entered into litigation with.

An investor may place themselves in a much better position than someone who loans money if they set out terms and conditions. Also if the investor was misled then then the business would be liable.





The investor could claim he was entitled to be paid before all other creditors. Failing that he could likely say he was mislead by the business which gave him assurances and claimed securities they never had.

Typically Irish to shaft layman investors. They form an important part of small business and should be better represented. The purpose of the Judge Judy is to highlight the universal importance of a written contract/agreement of some kind.

There is no legal need to have a written contract, the old adage a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on is just that an old adage, it has no basis in law. The courts on a daily basis deal with verbal contracts, you ask how do the do that it's simple it's called verbal evidence.

In this case as the lender/investor did not bother to do anything to secure his investment/loan, then in my opinion the courts are more likely to say it was an risky investment.

In company law the shareholders are not paid first they are paid last after everyone else. A secured bond holder would be paid first as his bond is secured on a specific asset. Other than that if you invest in a company any buy 25% that implies you are a shareholder and as such can sing for your money if investment goes. If on the other hand it was 25% of a non limited liability business then you are in a partnership and not only can lose your investment but could be liable for losses. If the person on the other hand says it was a loan of €5000 with €10,000 to be repaid in say 1 year, that may be illegal money lending as the interest rate is over 23%. There are many things this €5000 could be and no one here is in any position to tell the OP to either pay it back or not.

I agree about paperwork as it avoids confusion, but there is nothing stoping either party going to court and telling the court what they believed they agreed and then the court decides.

As an aside to use judge Judy to back up a legal argument is akin to using Wikipedia to further an argument. If you had just done a simple google search you could have found any number of legal cases before real courts that would have said that.

Also to make the statement that the OP shafted an investor, without any evidence of same, is unfair to the OP.

pirelli

ResearchWill wrote: »

There is no legal need to have a written contract, the old adage a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on is just that an old adage, it has no basis in law. The courts on a daily basis deal with verbal contracts, you ask how do the do that it's simple it's called verbal evidence.

In this case as the lender/investor did not bother to do anything to secure his investment/loan, then in my opinion the courts are more likely to say it was an risky investment.

In company law the shareholders are not paid first they are paid last after everyone else. A secured bond holder would be paid first as his bond is secured on a specific asset. Other than that if you invest in a company any buy 25% that implies you are a shareholder and as such can sing for your money if investment goes. If on the other hand it was 25% of a non limited liability business then you are in a partnership and not only can lose your investment but could be liable for losses. If the person on the other hand says it was a loan of €5000 with €10,000 to be repaid in say 1 year, that may be illegal money lending as the interest rate is over 23%. There are many things this €5000 could be and no one here is in any position to tell the OP to either pay it back or not.

I agree about paperwork as it avoids confusion, but there is nothing stoping either party going to court and telling the court what they believed they agreed and then the court decides.

As an aside to use judge Judy to back up a legal argument is akin to using Wikipedia to further an argument. If you had just done a simple google search you could have found any number of legal cases before real courts that would have said that.

Also to make the statement that the OP shafted an investor, without any evidence of same, is unfair to the OP.

Wikipedia has no qualifications whilst Judge Judy is a person who not only practised law but was appointed a Judge on such matters and if the man in this scenario had a contract he would have won, either way he was not an investor but a buyer. What did term did u use in Google to get all of these cases.

Also this person is not a shareholder, this company is not issuing shares. His position while risky is different than that of a shareholder.

I think the facts we have been given are far too vague to be scrolling and literally guessing at the relevance of cases. You loss someone's money then your not the exactly the good guy, why are we even helping someone who does not even understand what he is doing with other peoples money other than to lose it.

What search term did you use Researchwill because I can't find anything on Google. Maybe UCC i might be able to find something but not Google.

I am entitled to my opinion and OP should return some of this person's money if he and it sounds like he might have mislead the investor and i am not assuming the person who stupidly gave him 5000 euro may be the person making this i inappropriate contact but could be one of many people including the litigant or creditors that the OP owes money too.

Offy

pirelli wrote: »

I am entitled to my opinion and OP should return some of this person's money if he and it sounds like he might have mislead the investor and i am not assuming the person who stupidly gave him 5000 euro may be the person making this i inappropriate contact but could be one of many people including the litigant or creditors that the OP owes money too.

As someone who was a company director of a company that failed I can speak from personal experience. One of my directors also invested €5k. He received shares for this. When the company failed there was no assets. He completely lost his €5k. The interesting thing is the company failed largely in part because the investor lied on his CV. He claimed to have financial expertise in three start-up. It turned out he never did the books for any of the start-up, he was a salesman and knew very little about taxes, loans, wages, etc.
I dont think a link to Judge Judy has any relevance to this thread, this is Ireland and not America, different countries and different laws. You are entitled to an opinion but that doesnt mean your opinion is correct.

ResearchWill

pirelli wrote: »

Wikipedia has no qualifications whilst Judge Judy is a person who not only practised law but was appointed a Judge on such matters and if the man in this scenario had a contract he would have won, either way he was not an investor but a buyer. What did term did u use in Google to get all of these cases.

Also this person is not a shareholder, this company is not issuing shares. His position while risky is different than that of a shareholder.

I think the facts we have been given are far too vague to be scrolling and literally guessing at the relevance of cases. You loss someone's money then your not the exactly the good guy, why are we even helping someone who does not even understand what he is doing with other peoples money other than to lose it.

What search term did you use Researchwill because I can't find anything on Google. Maybe UCC i might be able to find something but not Google.

I am entitled to my opinion and OP should return some of this person's money if he and it sounds like he might have mislead the investor and i am not assuming the person who stupidly gave him 5000 euro may be the person making this i inappropriate contact but could be one of many people including the litigant or creditors that the OP owes money too.

Your statement that a person who loses someone's money is not exactly a good guy astounds me, I take as you admit you know not what the facts are that all business people who have had a failed business are in someway bad people, just really surprises me.

I'm relation toy support for the OP I have never said the OP is right or wrong guess why because I do not know, yes you are entitled to your opinion, but the OP did not ask for opinions he asked for advice you advised him to pay 2500 with out any facts, I advised to go speak to a solicitor and tell him everything and then follow that advice. If the solicitor says you owe the money then do what any decent person should do pay it, if on the other hand he does not owe the money the OP does not deserve to be treated on the manner he is.

On Oral contracts a google search threw up the following http://www.financialombudsman.ie/case-studies/judgements/A22-LYONS-MURRAY-BOSI-HoganJ-13Dec11-47801.pdf

You could also use first law or justis or courts.ie which would be way better than Judge Judy. Yes judge Judy is a Attorney in the US and has been apointment to a low level judicial appointment, in criminal court and family court (i believe but could be corrected)after working as a prosecutor in New York, that does in no way make her an expert in contract law.

The only point I have made here is that with out the real facts noone here or undead any lawyer can tell the OP where he stands.

BTW a good case about verbal contracts was the Pernod Ricard take over of Irish distillers good example of oral contract standing.

jblack

Verbal may mean written as well as oral.

ResearchWill

jblack wrote: »

Verbal may mean written as well as oral.

To be clear if I stated verbal I mean non written communication. In the Pernod case an agreement was orally entered into between Flavin and Desmond, that Flavin would sell shares in Irish Distilers for £4.50 I think. This was agreed face to face no written record of the agreement existed or was made the only communication was verbal. Then Grand Met I think offered over £5 a share and DCC tried to pull out of the deal. The SC stated that the original oral non written deal stuck.

If the SC say that it's good enough for Dermot Desmond to enter into a contract by oral means only then I personally think Judge Judy can take a jump. That oral contract was one of the most important contracts in Irish merger history as it gave the control of Irish Distilers to Pernod Ricard.

pirelli

ResearchWill wrote: »

Your statement that a person who loses someone's money is not exactly a good guy astounds me, I take as you admit you know not what the facts are that all business people who have had a failed business are in someway bad people, just really surprises me.

I'm relation toy support for the OP I have never said the OP is right or wrong guess why because I do not know, yes you are entitled to your opinion, but the OP did not ask for opinions he asked for advice you advised him to pay 2500 with out any facts, I advised to go speak to a solicitor and tell him everything and then follow that advice. If the solicitor says you owe the money then do what any decent person should do pay it, if on the other hand he does not owe the money the OP does not deserve to be treated on the manner he is.

On Oral contracts a google search threw up the following http://www.financialombudsman.ie/case-studies/judgements/A22-LYONS-MURRAY-BOSI-HoganJ-13Dec11-47801.pdf

You could also use first law or justis or courts.ie which would be way better than Judge Judy. Yes judge Judy is a Attorney in the US and has been apointment to a low level judicial appointment, in criminal court and family court (i believe but could be corrected)after working as a prosecutor in New York, that does in no way make her an expert in contract law.

The only point I have made here is that with out the real facts noone here or undead any lawyer can tell the OP where he stands.

BTW a good case about verbal contracts was the Pernod Ricard take over of Irish distillers good example of oral contract standing.

You must have done a background on Judge Judy, while she is in your words a low level judicial appointment and not a supreme court judge, you might have underestimated her judgement in this matter. Refer to post below.

ResearchWill wrote: »

To be clear if I stated verbal I mean non written communication. In the Pernod case an agreement was orally entered into between Flavin and Desmond, that Flavin would sell shares in Irish Distilers for £4.50 I think. This was agreed face to face no written record of the agreement existed or was made the only communication was verbal. Then Grand Met I think offered over £5 a share and DCC tried to pull out of the deal. The SC stated that the original oral non written deal stuck.

If the SC say that it's good enough for Dermot Desmond to enter into a contract by oral means only then I personally think Judge Judy can take a jump. That oral contract was one of the most important contracts in Irish merger history as it gave the control of Irish Distilers to Pernod Ricard.

That is exactly the finding Judge Judy made. May i write that again....Judge Judy identical finding.


She jumps like a tiger and stings like a bee, you and your supreme court merely meet the basic level of of her appointment. How did Flavin and DCC possibly reach the supreme court, sounds like a legal rip off. Judge Judy any day much more cost effective...

Just as in Judge Judy an offer was made and was accepted end of case.
No wonder you guys end up in the supreme court when you cannot even understand Judge Judy.

Tsk Tsk 'Jump in a lake' You wouldn't last five minutes with her with that attitude sir. Come back when your a judge.


All hail Judge Judy