A Deed of Seal

The following two searches have been done within three days week ending 17^th March 2013 Could the reference to Lucan be the disposal of the lands around Ryemore in 1992/1993?

12^th March 2013 Barry white lucan 1

15^th March 2013 elgiva white 2

Now on Saturday 2^nd February 2013 Elgiva White was in the changing room of the gym talking to her friend Ms Siobhan Rigopatten and said she would have to go into the library in college the next day and take a book out on contract law This from the same person who has also said in the aforementioned changing room 18th November 2012 she was in fifth year at school. Elgiva White now using Christian name Selina and UCD class of 2014 UCD and barrister since 2017 and Siobhan Rigopatten actual name Sharon Rossiter and UCD class of 2015 and barrister since 2016

Now as of a search done in the Central Office of the High Court 28^th February 2013 documents have been lodged against the estate of Emily G White after the date 7^th January 2013 and contract law is the only way after twelve years this type of litigation could be taken against the estate of the person. And the name of the Plaintiff is Grace Ross Consulting A search with the Companies Registration office shows under that name Grace & Ross Consulting Engineers Registered Business Name located in Ennis, Company Number 268228. The Business Name was registered 22nd December 2004 Effective Date 14th January 2005 and nothing submitted since There is also under an internet search a Grace and Ross Consulting Engineers in Limerick However if it was Grace and Ross Consulting Engineers then they were obliged to give their actual name and who they were trading as to the Central Office of the High Court. Which was not given to the person who did the search in the Central Office of the High Court 28th February 2013 So who are those persons and what did the Deed of Seal contain? As it can only be done on land and property.  And as this is a Deed of Seal who signed off with Emily G White prior to her death on 8^th April 2001? Since twelve years is the Statute of Limitation for Contract Law Hence the need to have the documents lodged January/February 2013 And may now be using a registered Business Name Number 268228 which was set up subsequent to Emily G White’s death?

Search Engine Used 24th March 2013 “had he done so and asked” 1

Well given that it has now been taken to litigation by the Plaintiff, it will be down to the courts to decide that one, although if the original bond was re invested in 2003 without declaring it to the Estate,  as it appears to have been then that is questionable, as the initial bond would have been Emily G White’s not the Plaintiff in these documents lodged in Central Office of the High Court January-February 2013

The details attached are about Contract Law

Deed of Seal

Source Wikipedia

In the law, a seal affixed to a contract or other legal instrument has had special legal significance at various times in the jurisdictions that recognise it. In the courts of common law jurisdictions, a contract which was sealed (“made under seal”) was treated differently from other written contracts (which were “made under hand”), although this practice gradually fell out of favour in most of these jurisdictions in the 19th and early 20th century. The legal term seal arises from the wax seal used throughout history for authentication (among other purposes).

Originally, only a wax seal was accepted as a seal by the courts, but by the 19th century many jurisdictions had relaxed the definition to include an impression in the paper on which the instrument was printed, an embossed paper wafer affixed to an instrument, a scroll made with a pen, or the printed words “Seal” or “L.S.” (standing for the Latin term locus sigilli meaning “place of the seal”).

Notwithstanding their reduced significance, seals are still sometimes used on contracts, usually in the impression on paper form.

Legal significance in contract law

Until modern statutory reforms in contract law, a seal was widely recognised by courts in common law jurisdictions as removing the need for consideration (value) in a contract. This reflects classical contract theory, in which consideration was viewed as a formal aspect of a contract, so that a seal could be considered an alternative form. A seal was not per se a type of consideration, but rather raised a presumption of consideration (courts have varied in their opinions of whether this presumption was rebuttable). See, e.g., Marine Contractors Co. Inc. v. Hurley, 365 Mass. 280, 285-86 (1974).

The rationale for this special treatment of sealed contracts can be understood in terms of the legal formalities that are associated with sealing a document with a wax seal. Firstly, the following of the legal formality of affixing a seal to a document was evidence of the existence of a contract. Secondly, the need to use a seal – widely known to have legal significance – served to impress upon the parties the significance of the agreement being made. This element of deliberation is important in the context of many legal theories for why donative promises are not generally enforceable in the same way as contracts: there is a concern that donative promises are sometimes made under pressure (for example, from family members) without adequate deliberation, which explains why a requirement for the legal formality of the seal might substitute for consideration to give enforceability to donative promises. Thirdly, the following of the legal formalities through the use of a seal demonstrated beyond doubt that a legal transaction was intended by the parties.[1]

In addition to these three abstract reasons, there may also have been a more practical reason, namely that the object used to imprint the wax, usually an engraved signet ring, identified its owner, thereby providing evidence that the owner of the seal was party to the contract.

Besides substituting for consideration, other consequences of the seal that, at least historically, have held include:[2]

• even payment did not discharge a sealed contract, if the instrument itself was not physically destroyed.[3]
• fraud was not permitted as a defence to a sealed contract
• subsequent modifications to a sealed contract were not binding except where the modifications were also under seal.
• a principal not designated as such in the contract (undisclosed principal) could not be connected to the contract if it was sealed.[4]