Godley v Power

CourtSupreme Court
Judgment Date01 Jan 1961

Verbal contract - Letter of defendant's solicitor confirming sale - Whether sufficient memorandum in writing - Statute of Frauds, 1695, s. 2

The plaintiff, the owner of a licensed premises, alleged that the defendant had entered into a concluded verbal agreement in September, 1953, to purchase the premises together with certain chattels and stock. At the hearing neither the plaintiff or the defendant gave evidence, but the defendant's solicitor gave evidence that the defendant instructed him that he had purchased the premises for £2,250 and on the same day the defendant's solicitor telephoned the plaintiff's solicitor and subsequently confirmed the conversation by a letter stating the purchase price, the liability of the Vendor to pay half the auctioneer's fees and asking to have the agreement for sale with an enclosed inventory included. An inhabitant of the place where the premises are situated testified that in September, 1953, the defendant told him that he had purchased the premises and a local Garda gave evidence that at the same period he was introduced to the defendant as the new proprietor of the new premises. A few days after the date of the oral contract the defendant attempted to withdraw from the sale on the grounds that certain articles included in the inventory had been removed, that audited figures had not been furnished and that the plaintiff had neglected to give possession within five days as agreed. The defendant did not raise any objection to title as furnished by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in the final form of this claim, sued for specific performance and in the alternative for damages for breach of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Mulhall v Haren
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1981
    ...with the leading Irish authorities, i.e. Lord Cloncurry Laffan (1924) 1 1.R. 78; Kearns .v. Manning (1935) I.R. 869; Godley .v. Power ( 95 I.L.T.R. 135); and Black .v. Kavanagh ( 108 I.L.T.R.91). All of these cases emphasise that it is no part of a solicitor's function to alter the terms of......
  • Keena v Coughlan
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 18 January 2019
    ...the essential terms are, at a minimum, the so-called ‘Three P's’ namely the parties, the property and the price ( Godley v. Power (1961) 95 I.L.T.R. 135 and Black v. Grealy [1977] IEHC Was there a concluded agreement? 115 For the reasons outlined earlier, I find that even taking the eviden......
  • Supermacs Ireland Ltd v Katesan (Naas) Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 7 June 2000
    ...SUPREME 8.5.1975 BLACK V KAVANAGH 1974 108 ILTR 91 BARRETT V COSTELLOE UNREP KENNY 13.7.1973 (NOTED IN 1973 107 ILTR 239) GODLEY V POWER 1957 95 ILTR 135 VAN HATZFELDT WILDENBERG V ALEXANDER 1912 1 CH 284 Synopsis Practice and Procedure Practice and procedure; appeal from order of High Cou......
  • An Cumann Peile Boitheimeach Teoranta (The Bohemian Football Club Ltd) v Albion Properties Ltd and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 7 November 2008
    ...162 1999 3 WLR 1217 2000 32 HLR 547 2000 79 P & CR 91 BOYLE v LEE & GOYNS 1992 1 IR 555 1992 ILRM 65 1991/11/2563 GODLEY v POWER 1961 95 ILTR 135 HAUGHAN & ORS v RUTLEDGE 1988 IR 295 1988/2/314 SNELL, MCGHEE SNELL'S EQUITY 28ED 1982 RAMSDEN v DYSON & THORNTON 1866 1 LR HL 12......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT