Formal requirements Flashcards
fishing rights over a river - does not constitute interest in land
Mackie v. Wilde (No. 2) [1998] 2 IR 578
A tenant owed rent to the plaintiff landlord, who seized the tenant’s goods as security.
The defendant promised to pay the tenant’s debt if the landlord returned the goods.
The tenant failed to pay, and the landlord sued the defendant for the debt.
The court ruled the agreement was a guarantee, which must be in writing under the Statute of Frauds.
Since it wasn’t in writing, the agreement was automatically void.
Fennell v. Mulcahy (1845) 8 Ir LR 434
meadowing- does not cover it- rather it is a sale of goods
Scully v. Corboy [1950] IR 140
- the defendant orally promised the plaintiff that if the plaintiff studied in London for 3 months, he would employ him on his return to Ireland for 4 years
- plaintiff duly followed this plan and sued on the contract when the defendant reneged
- The court held that, since the contract was intended to be performed over a period of 4 years and 3 months, it was unenforceable without a written memorandum
- unenforceable - more than 1 year
Naughton v. Limestone Land Co [1952] Ir Jur Rep 19
- Supreme Court confirmed that a letter written by the defendant’s agent, in which he repudiated the contract, could qualify as a memorandum as it outlined all the material terms of the verbal agreement
- memorandum can be valid even if not intended as memorandum
Tradax (supra)
Supreme Court found a valid signature for the purposes of the Statute of Frauds where a solicitor had instructed his secretary to type a letter on the firm’s headed notepaper, which letter set out all the material terms of the agreement
Casey v. Irish Continental Bank [1979] IR 364
a solicitor had sent an e-mail giving the terms of an acceptance. At the end was put “yours faithfully” and “Putsmans” (the name of the firm). - sufficient
Orton v. Collins [2007] 3 All ER 863
