Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> O’Callaghan v. Hamilton Leasing Ltd. [1983] IEHC 3; [1984] ILRM 146 (18 October 1983)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1983/3.html
Cite as: [1984] ILRM 146
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Between
Plaintiff
Defendant
Circuit Court Appeal, Eastern Circuit (18 October 1983).
Status: Reported at [1984] ILRM 146
McWilliam J.
The defendant, Hamilton Leasing (Ireland) Limited can only be liable to the plaintiff under s.14 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980, if the plaintiff was a buyer dealing as a consumer within the meaning of subsection (1) of s. 3 of the Act.
It seems to me that this contract was made in the course of the plaintiff's business. It was certainly made for the purposes of his business although I appreciate the point made on behalf of the plaintiff that this business does not in any way include a re-sale or further dealing with the goods dealt with by the contract before me.
In order to interpret the words of s. 3 otherwise I would have to amend paragraph (a) of subsection (1) by reading it as though it provided 'in the course of a business which includes a further dealing with the goods' or some words of that sort.
I cannot depart from the clear words of a Statute and try to construe it in accordance with my view of an unexpressed intention of the Legislature although I suspect the Legislature was more concerned with the business of engaging in further dealings with the goods.
With regard to paragraph (c) of the subsection, I am of opinion that tile expression 'ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption' should be contrasted with use for the purposes of a business rather than contrasted with use for the purpose of re-sale of or further dealings with the goods. These goods were supplied for the purpose of a business and it has not been suggested that titer would ever be supplied for use other than for the purpose of a business.
Accordingly, although these goods were supplied for the personal use of the plaintiff and he is the consumer in the ordinarily accepted meaning of the word, I must hold that, in this transaction, he did not 'deal as consumer' within the meaning of the Act.