McDonnell v McGuinness [High Court.; Supreme Court.]
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Court | Supreme Court |
Judgment Date | 27 October 1939 |
Date | 27 October 1939 |
Measure of damages - Loss of bargain - Stare decisis.
Defendant having without authority concluded a contract with the plaintiff for the purchase by the plaintiff of certain freehold premises, the property of a third party, who refused to complete the sale. Held, by Johnston, J. (affirming the decision in law of the Circuit Court Judge) that the damages recoverable by the plaintiff, in an action founded on contract, should include a sum in compensation for the loss of his bargain, but Gavan Duffy, J. (dissenting) was of opinion that such damages were limited to the costs and expenses actually incurred by the plaintiff. Engel v. FitchELR(L. R. 3 Q. B., 314, and 4 Q. B., 659) and Bainv. FothergillELR (L. R., 7 H. L., 158) discussed.
-Lands offered for sale by auction - Vendor unable to make title - Actionagainst auctioneer for breach of warranty of authority - Fraud not alleged - Measure of damages.
An action was brought in the Circuit Court by an intending purchaser of certain freehold lands, which were offered for sale by auction, against the auctioneer for damages for breach of warranty of authority. The Circuit Court Judge found that the auctioneer had warranted an authority to sell which he did not possess, and he awarded a sum for costs and expenses, together with interest on the deposit, holding that the plaintiff would have been entitled to damages for the loss of his bargain, but that in fact he had suffered no such loss. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court (Johnston and Gavan Duffy JJ.) in respect of the amount of damages, and, the Judges being divided in opinion, the decision of the Circuit Court Judge was affirmed. Johnston J. was of opinion, following Engel v. FitchELR, L. R. 4 Q. B. 659, and Godwin v. FrancisELR, L.R. 5 C. P. 295, that the appeal should be allowed, and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages, based upon the loss which he had incurred, and that such damages should include damages for the loss of his bargain. Gavan Duffy J. was of opinion, following Kelly v. DuffyIR, [1922] 1 I.R. 62, that the action being framed in contract and not in deceit, the rule in Flureau v. Thornhill, 2 W. Bl...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McQuaid v Lynam and Another
...Semble, that on the authority of Bain v. FothergillELR, L.R. 7 H.L. 158, Kelly v. DuffyIR, [1922] 1 I.R. 62 and McDonnellv. McGuinnessIR [1939] I.R. 223, even had the plaintiff established that there was a valid contract, the only damages to which he would have been entitled by reason of th......
-
Roberts v O'Neill
...not give a clear title and, therefore, the rule in Bain -v- Fothergill applied. I was referred to the cases of McDonnell -v- McGuinness (1939) I.R. 223, andMalhotra -v- Choudbury (1978) 3 W.L.R. 827. I do not accept the proposition that the rule in Bain -v- Fothergill has any application to......
-
Roberts v O'Neill
...Cases mentioned in this report:— 1 Bain v. Fothergill (1874) L.R. 7 H.L. 158. 2 Lavan v. Walsh [1964] I.R. 87. 3 McDonnell v. McGuinness [1939] I.R. 223. 4 Malhotra v. Choudhury [1978] 3 W.L.R. 825. 5 Kelly v. Park Hall School [1979] I.R. 340. 6 Savile v. Savile (1721) 1 P. Wms. 745. 7 Moun......