Frigoscandia (Contracting) Ltd v Continental Irish Meat Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judge | Mr. Justice McWilliam |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1982 |
| Neutral Citation | [1979] IEHC 3 |
| Docket Number | No. 3770P./1977 |
| Date | 01 January 1982 |
[1979] IEHC 3
THE HIGH COURT
Judgment of Mr. Justice McWilliam delivered the 25th day of April 1979
This case concerns the construction and effect of a clause which, in one form or another, is becoming increasingly common in contracts for the sale of goods. Here, the goods consist of refrigerating equipment for a factory producing meat products of a hamburger or similar nature and is described as a Gyrofreeze In-Line Freezing Model 118–405. I shall call it the Machine. It was sold by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, Continents Irish Meat Limited, at the price of £39,800 payable on the following terms, that is to say:- 30% with the order, 40% on commencement of site work, or when the equipment is ready for shipment or (sic) if the site work is delayed for any reason beyond our control, 20% when equipment is mechanically ready for operation, but not more than 30 days after the second payment, and 10% when the equipment has been handed over, but not later than 30 days after the third payment. Payment nett fourteen days from receipt of invoice. There was also a provision for a variation in the price in accordance with any changes in exchange rates.
The machine was sold by the Plaintiff subject to conditions which included the following:-
(1) Until all sums due to the Seller have been fully paid to it, the plant, machinery and materials supplied by the Seller herein shall remain the Seller's personal property and retain its character as such no matter in what manner affixed or attached to any structure. If the Buyer fail fully to perform this contract, the unpaid portion of the purchase price shall, at the option of the Seller, become immediately due and payable without notice, together with all reasonable legal or collection agency fees incurred in the collection thereof.
(3) In case of default, the Seller reserves the right to enter upon the premises where the materials are located and take possession of and remove the same, if so elects. In the event of such removal the Seller may retain all payments made therefor as compensation for the use of the materials.
Essentially, there is no dispute about the facts. The machine was supplied and installed and put into operation but only a comparatively small quantity of samples had been produced before the Bank appointed the second-named Defendant as receiver of the property of the first-named Defendant. At this time there was, and there still is, a sum of £10,199.71 due to the Plaintiff in respect of the contract.
On behalf of the Plaintiff it is claimed that the machine is still the property of the Plaintiff and a claim is made for its return, but I understand that the Plaintiff, in fact,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Carroll v Bourke
...KNATCHBULL V HALLETT 1880 13 CH 696 GEORGE INGLEFIELD LTD, IN RE 1933 CH 1 FRIGOSCANDIA (CONTRACTING) LTD V CONTINENTAL IRISH MEATS LTD 1982 ILRM 396 COMPANIES ACT 1963 S99 KENT AND SUSSEX SAWMILLS LTD, IN RE 1947 CH 177, 1946 2 AER 638 INTERVIEW LTD, IN RE 1975 IR 383 ROSCOE V WINDER 1......
-
Unitherm Heating Systems Ltd v Wallace as official liquidator of BHT Group Ltd ((in Liquidation))
...to legally so provide is not in dispute. As Mc William J. stated inFrigoscandia (Contracting) Ltd. v. Continental Irish Meat Ltd. [1982] I.L.R.M. 396 at p.398:- ‘The parties to a contract can agree to any terms they wish and, amongst others, they can agree that the property in the goods sha......
-
Uniacke v Cassidy Electrical Supply Company Ltd
...V HILL 2 HLC 28 RENDELL'S CASE LR 3 PC 101 HENRY V HAMMOND 1913 2 KB 515 FRIGOSCANDIA (CONTRACTING) LTD V CONTINENTAL IRISH MEATS LTD 1982 ILRM 396 MCENTIRE V CROSSLEY BROTHERS 1895 AC 457 SALE OF GOODS ACT 1893 S17 SALE OF GOODS ACT 1893 S1 CLOUGH MILLS LTD V MARTIN 1984 3 AER 982 INTERVI......
-
Unitherm Heating Systems Ltd v Kieran Wallace
...LTD v G & JF BOURKE LTD 1990 1 IR 481 1990 ILRM 285 1989/4/1014 FRIGOSCANDIA (CONTRACTING) LTD v CONTINENTAL IRISH MEATS LTD 1982 ILRM 396 STREET v MOUNTFORD 1985 2 AER 289 1985 AC 809 1985 2 WLR 877 1985 1 EGLR 128 1985 NLJ REP 460 TATUNG (UK) LTD v GALEX TELESURE LTD 1989 5 BCC 325 COMPA......