Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Ministry of Industry and Commerce V Pimm Bros

  • 12-12-2007 7:27pm
    #1
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭


    Anyone know where I can find a synopsis of this case?

    Need it ASAP, just a bried runthrough will be fine.

    Ministry of Industry and Commerce V Pimm Bro Ltd [1966] Ir 154


Comments

  • #2
    Tom Young
    Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tom Young


    Competing Literal and Purposive Approaches to Interpretation in the Irish Courts

    The “ordinary meaning” rule dependent on context, and on the audience to which a statute is addressed. He made it clear that, if a statute was addressed to a particular class, to whom the words would have a distinct meaning, or amongst whom the words would be used as a term of art, the “ordinary meaning” rule would not apply. See also Minister for Industry and Commerce v Pim Brothers Ltd [1966] IR 154 and Minister for Industry and Commerce v Hammond Metal Co Ltd [1947] Ir Jur

    Commercial

    Display of Goods

    In Minister for Industry and Commerce v Pim Bros Ltd [1966] IR 154. the defendant company was prosecuted under the Hire-Purchase Act 1946 (since replaced by the Consumer Credit Act 1995), which provided it was an offence to ‘offer for sale’ goods on credit terms without specifically stating the terms for credit. The company had a display of goods in a window with a price tag attached, which did not state the credit terms. The High Court held that this did not violate the 1946 Act, since the price tag was an invitation to treat and not an offer for sale.

    Proper citation: Minister for Industry and Commerce v Pim Bros Ltd [1966] IR 154


Advertisement