While UK court decisions are not binding on Irish courts, they are often cited in such courts and often seen as a convincing precedent. As far as we know, there has not recently been a reported decision of the Irish courts in a commercial context (e.g. B spa) which deals with the question of what are the reasons for the appropriate refusal to consent to something, while the phrase “such consent should not be inappropriately withheld” (or delayed) is very often used (and trusted) in trade agreements in that jurisdiction. Originally, the plaintiff borrowers had filed a lawsuit against the defendant bank for allegations of mis-selling of various loans. These proceedings were settled and a “Tomlin`s Order” was made (in fact, an order that was used to jeopardize the dispute in the High Court). Subsequently, the defendant bank would continue to insure a remaining line of credit of approximately €5.9 million for five years, secured against real estate in France worth approximately €4 million, but which will be included in the loan agreement with the following regime: fortunately, the UK courts have examined the reluctance of companies outside the owner-tenant relationship. In the judgment company Porton Capital6, the buyer had agreed, in the context of a share purchase agreement, that it would not cease to market and develop a product without the agreement of the sellers, and that consent should not be inappropriately refused. When sales of the product collapsed, the buyer obtained the agreement of the sellers to cease manufacturing the product. When the sellers refused to give their consent, the buyer still ended the manufacture. The English High Court approved the sellers` interpretation of the sentence as follows: in this case, the judge decided that the principles deriving from the law of the lessor and the lessee also applied to commercial agreements, in order to determine whether or not a party had refused his consent.
When establishing an agreement on your business relationship, the meaning of words is important; It is important to ensure that the actual meanings and implications of frequently used words are understood. In the event of disagreement or dispute over a party`s obligations under a contract, difficulties may arise when words or phrases actually have meanings that one or both parties have not understood. The example below serves to demonstrate the risk of not understanding (i) the actual meaning and implications of the words used in practice; and (ii) take full account of the specific obligations you request from the other party to a contract and vice versa. Surprisingly, there are very few reported cases in Canada that highlight this problem related to the borrower-lender relationship. On the contrary, the main Canadian cases have emerged in relation to commercial consents related to the owner-tenant relationship.. . .