http://www.cearta.ie/2007/02/for-your-consideration/ the Irish for rights Sun, 05 Feb 2012 01:43:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://www.cearta.ie/2007/02/for-your-consideration/comment-page-1/#comment-54 Ruth Cannon Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:46:55 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/2007/02/for-your-consideration/#comment-54 PS for a recent issue involving Ryanair and unfair contract terms (in the UK) see http://www.out-law.com/page-7487 PS for a recent issue involving Ryanair and unfair contract terms (in the UK) see
http://www.out-law.com/page-7487

]]> http://www.cearta.ie/2007/02/for-your-consideration/comment-page-1/#comment-53 Ruth Cannon Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:41:44 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/2007/02/for-your-consideration/#comment-53 Hi Eoin, love the blog! The broad view of consideration and intention to create legal relations taken in your post is borne out by the recent Irish decision of Kelly J in O'Keeffe v Ryanair, unreported, High Court, the 19th day of July, 2002 where it was held that the fact that the the plaintiff had consented to participate in the publicity given to her by Ryanair as the airline’s one millionth passenger constituted consideration for its promise to give her free air travel for life, stating that this participation "was regarded as being of value by the defendant and I see no reason why the law should not regard it as likewise being of value. The surrender by the plaintiff of her anonymity and privacy and her active participation in the generation of the publicity that was created on the day in question in my view amounted to a real consideration and sufficient to support a valid contractâ€?. He also rejected Ryanair's argument that the promise was not intended to create legal relations, stating that “the onus of proving that there was no such intention is on the party who asserts that no legal effect is intended, and the onus is a heavy one.â€? Do you agree with these conclusions? Hi Eoin, love the blog! The broad view of consideration and intention to create legal relations taken in your post is borne out by the recent Irish decision of Kelly J in O’Keeffe v Ryanair, unreported, High Court, the 19th day of July, 2002 where it was held that the fact that the the plaintiff had consented to participate in the publicity given to her by Ryanair as the airline’s one millionth passenger constituted consideration for its promise to give her free air travel for life, stating that this participation “was regarded as being of value by the defendant and I see no reason why the law should not regard it as likewise being of value. The surrender by the plaintiff of her anonymity and privacy and her active participation in the generation of the publicity that was created on the day in question in my view amounted to a real consideration and sufficient to support a valid contractâ€?. He also rejected Ryanair’s argument that the promise was not intended to create legal relations, stating that
“the onus of proving that there was no such intention is on the party who asserts that no legal effect is intended, and the onus is a heavy one.� Do you agree with these conclusions?

]]>