Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Government consent

  • 07-02-2013 11:47pm
    #1
    tacofries
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 854 ✭✭✭


    Hey just a quick question,

    Would I be correct in saying that for a contract to be valid both parties must have consent to contract. This means that each party must enter the contract due to their own desire without being under and undue pressure from the other party??

    If so, does this mean that any contract regarding loans,bailouts and other general sh1te entered into by the government are invalid and not legal, since the government were pushed into agreeing to contracts by the EU?


Comments

  • #2
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    No.


  • #3
    valleyoftheunos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭valleyoftheunos


    No, being in a weaker bargaining position does not invalidate consent.


  • #4
    Predalien
    Closed Accounts Posts: 946 ✭✭✭Predalien


    That position is a bit like saying a hungry person can't properly consent to a contract to buy food.


  • #5
    Sacksian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭Sacksian


    tacofries wrote: »
    Hey just a quick question,

    Would I be correct in saying that for a contract to be valid both parties must have consent to contract. This means that each party must enter the contract due to their own desire without being under and undue pressure from the other party??

    If so, does this mean that any contract regarding loans,bailouts and other general sh1te entered into by the government are invalid and not legal, since the government were pushed into agreeing to contracts by the EU?

    If only.

    Very early on in our negotations, the EU asked Ireland did they "understand". Not wanting to appear stupid, our Government said that they did. This means that they agreed to "stand" "under" the EU in negotiating the various deals. So, we don't have a leg to stand on, which is why the Government sold all our birth certificates to the IMF.

    Also, because the EU is always written in capitals (as you did above), it is a "legal fiction" and, in all probability, does not exist. The common law name for it is Union of the Family Europe.


  • #6
    Strawberry Fields
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭Strawberry Fields


    Independent legal advice usually shoots all that.
    It's not like the Government couldn't get any.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    Sacksian wrote: »
    If only.

    Very early on in our negotations, the EU asked Ireland did they "understand". Not wanting to appear stupid, our Government said that they did. This means that they agreed to "stand" "under" the EU in negotiating the various deals. So, we don't have a leg to stand on, which is why the Government sold all our birth certificates to the IMF.

    Also, because the EU is always written in capitals (as you did above), it is a "legal fiction" and, in all probability, does not exist. The common law name for it is Union of the Family Europe.

    Complete and utter bull**it.


  • #8
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Sacksian wrote: »

    If only.

    Very early on in our negotations, the EU asked Ireland did they "understand". Not wanting to appear stupid, our Government said that they did. This means that they agreed to "stand" "under" the EU in negotiating the various deals. So, we don't have a leg to stand on, which is why the Government sold all our birth certificates to the IMF.

    Also, because the EU is always written in capitals (as you did above), it is a "legal fiction" and, in all probability, does not exist. The common law name for it is Union of the Family Europe.

    That was after we asked them if they were wearing pants. Pants really means p ants which sounds like pee on aunts which means the European Union urinates on their aunts which makes them perverts which really means per vert which is French for do as the greens say and so the eu agreed to do as the greens say, who were part of the government at the time and/or green is the colour of Ireland so really it was a double bluff and the eu secretly agreed to "stand" "under" John gormley.

    At least, that's my understanding and because it has sex, intrigue and scandal makes for a better legal fiction than yours.

    However, I agree about the selling of the birth Certs and was wondering whether there is a greater value in the old long form birth Certs as opposed to the new short form ones?


  • #9
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Sacksian wrote: »
    If only.

    Very early on in our negotations, the EU asked Ireland did they "understand". Not wanting to appear stupid, our Government said that they did. This means that they agreed to "stand" "under" the EU in negotiating the various deals. So, we don't have a leg to stand on, which is why the Government sold all our birth certificates to the IMF.

    Also, because the EU is always written in capitals (as you did above), it is a "legal fiction" and, in all probability, does not exist. The common law name for it is Union of the Family Europe.
    Poe's Law. I love it.


Advertisement