Tagged: Contract Law
Noted in the Irish Times, 2nd February 2013, page 15. “With no evidence of fraud…” This phrase means there was no evidence of deceit by Silvercrest Foods Ltd. There was in fact deceit. Tesco was deceived as to the sources of the burger meat; it described it as a breach of trust. My online dictionary defines “fraud” as: “a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities”
When the Food Safety Authority of Ireland tested a range of Irish frozen beef burgers, purchased from Irish and British supermarkets, it found evidence that they contained horse meat and/or pig meat. It found that the source of the offending meat was the respective manufacturer of the beef burger. In the case of Silvercrest Foods Ltd. almost 30% of one burger constituted horse meat. These facts were sufficient evidence to prosecute the various manufacturers (and the retailers). Prosecutions are necessary […]
Horse meat: An additive to burgers. It is perceptible only by means of DNA testing and/or the use of an electron microscope (except in France where its very colour, taste and hooves trigger the little grey cells of French sleuths). Money back Guarantee: If you return your complete horse meat beef burger, with its wrapping and a receipt, or other indubitable evidence of purchase from our supermarket, you will receive back your money that you paid to buy the burger […]
The Food Safety Authority of Ireland has analysed selected consumer products sold in Ireland. These products are probably also sold in the UK. By and large they were “manufactured” in Ireland. The products are, allegedly, burgers made of beef meat. (1) It is true, they contained some beef meat. However, they also contained some pig and horsemeat. The proportions varied from sample to sample. There is one conclusion to be drawn from this; it is not wise to trust the […]
That means that injuries from food poisoning, or road accidents caused by the negligence of drivers or mechanics are all suitable to be litigated under the 1995 Act, conditional on those services causing the injury being part of the “obligations under the contract”.
The main problem with defective DePuy hips is the design failure. The hip will fail mechanically. This is a serious matter. Instead of ease of movement, the hip will hinder movement. Movement will be painful, probably noisy, and anything but smooth.
It is essential to know that the Injuries Board has no role in the DePuy hip scandal. If a victim lodges an application to the Injuries Board, it is a mistake. The Injuries Board will, in due course, reject it. Worse than that, time will continue to run against the plaintiff while the application is being made and considered. In short, it is a waste of valuable and scarce time.
This is exactly what has been determined by the Irish and Finnish reports; it is probable that Pandemrix caused the cases of narcolepsy appearing in young people who got the vaccine.
The liability, in law, for this is clear. The services delivered to these patients were subject to the implied terms of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980. The production of Pandemrix triggered the terms of the Liability for Defective Products Act 1990.