Ministry of Industry and Commerce V Pimm Bros

Competing Literal and Purposive Approaches to Interpretation in the Irish Courts

The “ordinary meaning” rule dependent on context, and on the audience to which a statute is addressed. He made it clear that, if a statute was addressed to a particular class, to whom the words would have a distinct meaning, or amongst whom the words would be used as a term of art, the “ordinary meaning” rule would not apply. See also Minister for Industry and Commerce v Pim Brothers Ltd [1966] IR 154 and Minister for Industry and Commerce v Hammond Metal Co Ltd [1947] Ir Jur

Commercial

Display of Goods

In Minister for Industry and Commerce v Pim Bros Ltd [1966] IR 154. the defendant company was prosecuted under the Hire-Purchase Act 1946 (since replaced by the Consumer Credit Act 1995), which provided it was an offence to ‘offer for sale’ goods on credit terms without specifically stating the terms for credit. The company had a display of goods in a window with a price tag attached, which did not state the credit terms. The High Court held that this did not violate the 1946 Act, since the price tag was an invitation to treat and not an offer for sale.

Proper citation: Minister for Industry and Commerce v Pim Bros Ltd [1966] IR 154