The High Court found that the infringement application was not prescribed, as the limitation period in question runs from the date the machine was delivered in October 2002 and not from the date of the contract. In the most recent case of Murphy v. Joe O`Toole – Sons Ltd- Anor  IEHC 486, Baker J. found that the limitation period for a merchandise sale agreement ran from the date of delivery of the goods and not from the date the parties entered into the contract. The judge found that under section 1 of the Property Sales Act in 1893, “the delivery of goods and the simultaneous obligation to pay the goods are the point at which the contract or sale agreement becomes a sale and, if there was one, occurred during execution or delivery, when the contract was no longer enforceable, but was executed.” After Gallagher/ACC Bank, Baker J. renounced participating in the “artificial exercise of distinguishing between contractual rights and decoupling contract and in fact unlawful rights.” It concluded that the principal and principal claim in this case was a right to a violation of the agreement to sell a machine, a contract and under the provisions of the Property Sale Act in 1893 and 1980. Accordingly, it found that the breach of the contract of sale, in the event of an infringement, had occurred at the time of delivery of the goods to the purchaser, meaning that the applicant`s right to the infringement was not prescribed. The applicant submitted that he was within six years of the july 2008 stay of proceedings on the grounds (i) that the delay did not begin to run until the time of delivery of the machine, namely in October 2002, for breach of contract; (ii) the contract was conditional on the financing of the lease-sale and the evidence indicates that the financing was not obtained until October 2002 and that this period only began to run when the condition was met; and (iii) the requirement of negligence he suffered when he suffered injury or loss which, in his view, was either the date of delivery or the financing agreement (Hegarty/O`Loughran  1 IR 148). In April 2002, the applicant purchased agricultural machinery financed by a lease-sale of the second defendant. The machine was delivered in October 2002.
The applicant was then arrested by the Gardai on the grounds that the machine was not suitable for transport on Irish roads. The applicant returned the machine to the first accused in October 2003 and returned the proceedings in July 2008. The decision specifies when the default appeal period for contracts to sell goods that are to be delivered at a later date begins. In its judgment, Baker J. indicated that, in the event of a sale agreement, it did not issue direct authority over the duration of the statute of limitations. Section 11 (1)a) of the Statute of Limits Act 1957 provides for a six-year statute of limitations, in violation of contractual cases to be held from the date of the introduction of the plea. The general rule in an infringement is that the remedy does not arise when the injury is suffered, but at the time of the offence, and that law is well established.