Fitzgerald, Alexis

Thursday, 27 March 1980

Seanad Eireann Debate
Vol. 93 No. 14

First Page Previous Page Page of 6 Next Page Last Page

I should like to give full support to Senator Molony on this amendment. The present situation in regard to the law governing the driving of cars on our roads is a disgrace. There ought to be a prope...More Button

I am grateful to the Senator for coming to my assistance in a state of confusion so obvious that I do not think it can be concealed. To answer the question, the Dublin Road Safety Council simply carri...More Button

A lot of what I said falls to the ground as nonsense if the Minister is correct.More Button

Any subsequent owner is the lawful user of the motor vehicle.More Button

Let us put it beyond doubt because it has created this doubt in many people's minds. In section 19 (1) the Minister put in the words: In this subsection, “buyer” includes all persons who acquire tit...More Button

There are many stupid Senators and there may be stupid judges.More Button

It is hard luck on the son who bought the car from his father if he has not the same right as he would have if he was merely using it with his father's permission.More Button

This could be dealt with on Report Stage. It needs clarification.More Button

The Minister is concerned with the consumer. We think it is necessary to advise the consumer to lose his certificate as quickly as he can.More Button

It is to the disadvantage of the consumer. He is in a worse position that he would be if there was no provision for this certificate. If something goes wrong with the car he will be in a worse posi...More Button

I understand it to be correct.More Button

This amendment has caused me some confusion. Would it be possible to see whether all the double negatives could be changed in any way? It is frightfully difficult stuff to take in and retain. Subjec...More Button

I think the idea behind subsection (2) is excellent but I would prefer if there were some way possible to break the subsection into two subsections so that we might have a consequential amendment else...More Button

I would argue in support of Senator Whitaker generally that the finance house should at least have a right of indemnification from the supplier. I do not think it is just that it should be liable for...More Button

This is a point I could have made on section 15 if I was in the House but it is applicable to several sections. I do not know what is the position properly construed. I think all these sections, sec...More Button

In relation to what?More Button

The best retort to that is to ask the question. I take it these sections relative to guarantees apply only in transactions with consumers. If they do not, then we are having a fundamental change of t...More Button

I urge the Minister to direct his advisers to consider the language to see if this creates any trouble in any situation.More Button

And remembering that the guarantee part is in Part II relative to the sale of goods.More Button

It is hard luck on the attorneys around the country.More Button

All that is fine if we are dealing with consumers. I have thought for a long time that it is a dreadful disgrace that we have lived with these guarantees that were in fact taking away people's rights...More Button

What about subsection (2)? I take it that we are not intending to exclude a proper provision for arbitrators in the event of a dispute. We should at least say this should not prevent an agreed appoin...More Button

The matter is not at all clear as Senators and the Minister suggested. In the equivalent sections in the misrepresentation code in Britain, or like provisions, the question has been raised as to whet...More Button

Let us say it.More Button

It is a point we can consider between now and Report Stage. I am sure Senator Ryan is right in that. Question put and agreed to. SECTION 19. Government amendment No. 20: In subsection (1), page 11, l...More Button

As a result of our freedom we lived for an additional dozen years with the benefit of that bit of law which was amended in Britain in 1967. The Minister took advantage of the 12 years and amended it ...More Button

This is an important section which effects a very important change in the law. Is this not the section which really makes for example, the section with regard to supplied cars not as important as it...More Button

Whose business is it to prove whether it is fair and reasonable?More Button

Of course, but on whom is the burden of proving it?More Button

Is it spelled out?More Button

The British spelled it out by way of statute.More Button

Could we have that very clearly? The provision is that in the case of a contract of sale with an exemption term the exemption term shall not be enforceable to the extent that it is shown that it woul...More Button

That was amended in 1977. Perhaps at the end of the day I will be proved wrong in this but one way or the other, our labours will not have been in vain.More Button

This conflict of law position will have to be borne in mind when we reach the misrepresentation part because while we may be able to prevent the exclusion of implied terms, the misrepresentation law w...More Button

May I suggest an amendment to section 61 on a point which has been raised in some textbook as to whether there is the right to rescind a contract of sale of goods where innocent misrepresentation has ...More Button

There is nothing necessarily immoral in being political.More Button

The name of the gentleman who raised the doubt in question is Atiyah and the publication is, Sale of Goods Act, 5th edition, pages 301-2. Question put and agreed to. Section 25 agreed to. SECTION 26. ...More Button

The words were in the original Bill and were deleted. This was probably gone into in the 1946 Hire Purchase Act. I should have thought that the original words “or known to the hirer” would stand.More Button

I would suggest to the Minister that there may be need somewhere in this part of the Bill to repeat the definition of “merchantable quality,” that is if you are going to have a definition of merchant...More Button

I did not realise it but I should have made that particular point on section 29, which is where the word “unmerchantable” appears.More Button


Last Updated: 14/09/2010 13:00:10 First Page Previous Page Page of 6 Next Page Last Page