High Court of Ireland Decisions

1. The Defendant, Woodchester Investments Limited (hereinafter called Hamilton) agreed to lease to the Plaintiff a telephone system which it had been agreed would be supplied to the Plaintiff by the Defendant, Inter-Call Limited (hereinafter called Inter-Call). The Plaintiff was then the Bursar of the Salesian Agricultural College at Warrenstown , Co. Meath, which, at the time of the agreement, had a manual telephone system with fifteen extensions. Eight core were required and it was decided, on the recommendation of Inter-Call, to install a complete new electronic system as being more efficient for the purposes of the College.

2. The installation was not completed by Inter-Call and what was installed was most unsatisfactory. This was not contested by Hamilton.

3. Inter-Call did not enter an appearance or contest the claim and judgment was given in the Circuit Court against both Defendants on 11th June 1984. Hamilton at all times denied liability and has appealed the judgment against it.

4. The Plaintiff stated that the College is a non-profit-making venture but, in addition to training students in agriculture, the College sells very considerable quantities of farm produce, including cattle, pigs, vegetables, mushrooms and eggs, with a turnover approaching £1,000,000. The Plaintiff stated that all money earned was put back into the farm.

5. Condition 2 of the leasing agreement provided as follows:-

6. The Lessee's acceptance of delivery of the equipment shall be conclusive evidence that the Lessee has examined the equipment and found it to ‘be complete, in accordance with the description overleaf, in good order and condition, fit for the purpose for which it may be required, and in every way satisfactory.

7. The Plaintiff relies on the provisions of section 14 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980, which provides as follows:- Where goods are sold to a buyer dealing as consumer and in relation to the sale an agreement is entered into by the buyer with another person acting in the course of a business (in this section referred to as a finance house for the repayment to the finance house of money paid by the finance house to the seller in respect of the price of the goods, the finance house shall be deemed to be a party to the sale and the finance house and the seller shall, jointly and severally, be answerable to the buyer for breach of the contract of sale and for any misrepresentations made by the seller with regard to the goods.

8. The Plaintiff was the buyer within the section and, to benefit from its provisions, must have been buying as consumer within the meaning of the Act. “Consumer” is construed at section 3 of the Act. This section provides:-

9. Hamilton relied on the provisions of Condition 2 of the leasing agreement and also on the contention that the Plaintiff was not a “consumer” within the meaning of the Act. I was referred to my own decision in O’Callaghan v. Hamilton Leasing (lreland) Ltd. (1948) 4 I.L.R.M. 146.

10. I do not accept that Condition 2 can apply where only a part of the equipment was delivered. An argument advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff that this condition should not be enforceable unless it was fair and reasonable seems to depend on the provisions of section 31 which, under the provisions of section 38 , appear to apply only to lettings to a person dealing with a consumer, which is the situation arising under section 14.

11. Whatever may be done with the profits accruing from the extensive agricultural activities carried on at Warrenstown, I do not see how it can be said that engaging in these activities with a turnover of the amount indicated does not constitute carrying on a business. The evidence indicated that the equipment to be supplied was mainly or largely to be used in the course of the farming activities, although I am sure it was also to be used for other purposes of the College as well. Furthermore, the equipment was quite clearly not of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption.

12. No argument has been advanced in this case which persuades me that I should alter the view I formed in O’Callaghan’s case .

13. Finally, it was suggested on behalf of the Plaintiff that he was entitled to succeed at common law on the grounds that he did not get what was agreed to be supplied, that the equipment was not merchantable or fit for the purpose for which it was supplied and that what was delivered was not complete. This may be correct as against Inter-Call but, with regard to Hamilton, I was not referred to any authorities and I am not satisfied that there is any liability on a finance house in circumstances such as these.

14. Accordingly, I must, somewhat reluctantly, reverse the decision of the Circuit Court.