4. Privity and third party rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 72-96
Author(s):  
Jill Poole ◽  
James Devenney ◽  
Adam Shaw-Mellors

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the doctrine of privity and third party rights. The doctrine of privity of contract provides that a person who is not a party to a contract (called a ‘third party’), cannot acquire rights under or enforce the provisions of that contract or rely on its protections even if the provisions were intended to benefit that third party. At common law there are complex, and sometimes artificial, ways to avoid this conclusion. More significant nowadays is the attempt to reform this principle by legislation in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, allowing some third party beneficiaries to enforce the provisions of contracts.

2019 ◽  
pp. 77-101
Author(s):  
Jill Poole ◽  
James Devenney ◽  
Adam Shaw-Mellors

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the doctrine of privity and third party rights. The doctrine of privity of contract provides that a person who is not a party to a contract (called a ‘third party’), cannot acquire rights under or enforce the provisions of that contract or rely on its protections even if the provisions were intended to benefit that third party. At common law there are complex, and sometimes artificial, ways to avoid this conclusion. More significant nowadays is the attempt to reform this principle by legislation in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, allowing some third party beneficiaries to enforce the provisions of contracts.


Author(s):  
Jill Poole ◽  
James Devenney ◽  
Adam Shaw-Mellors

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the doctrine of privity and third party rights. The doctrine of privity of contract provides that a person who is not a party to a contract (called a ‘third party’), cannot acquire rights under or enforce the provisions of that contract or rely on its protections even if the provisions were intended to benefit that third party. At common law there are complex, and sometimes artificial, ways to avoid this conclusion. More significant nowadays is the attempt to reform this principle by legislation in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, allowing some third party beneficiaries to enforce the provisions of contracts.


2021 ◽  
pp. 307-358
Author(s):  
Robert Merkin ◽  
Séverine Saintier

Poole’s Casebook on Contract Law provides a comprehensive selection of case law that addresses all aspects of the subject encountered on undergraduate courses. This chapter examines privity of contract, its relationship with consideration, and the ability of third parties to enforce contractual provisions for their benefit. The doctrine of privity of contract provides that the benefits of a contract can be enjoyed only by the parties to that contract and only parties can suffer the burdens of the contract. At common law, third party beneficiaries could not enforce a contractual provision in their favour so various devices were employed seeking to avoid privity. Statute now allows for direct third party enforcement but in limited circumstances. This chapter examines the background to privity and the attempted statutory reform in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as it has been interpreted in the case law. The chapter also discusses the common law means of avoiding privity as illustrated by the case law, e.g. agency, collateral contracts, and trusts of contractual obligations. Finally, it assesses the remedies available to the contracting party to recover on behalf of the third party beneficiary of the promise, including the narrow and broad grounds in Linden Gardens Trust. It concludes by briefly considering privity and burdens—and the exceptional situations where a burden can be imposed on a person who is not a party to the contract.


2020 ◽  
pp. 613-660
Author(s):  
Jack Beatson ◽  
Andrew Burrows ◽  
John Cartwright

This Chapter deals with the scope of a valid contract when formed, and the question: to whom does the obligation extend? This question is considered under two separate headings: (1) the acquisition of rights by a third party, and (2) the imposition of liabilities upon a third party. At common law the general rule is that no one but the parties to a contract can be entitled under it, or bound by it. This principle is known as that of privity of contract.


Author(s):  
Robert Merkin ◽  
Séverine Saintier

The Casebook series provides a comprehensive selection of case law that addresses all aspects of the subject encountered on undergraduate courses. This chapter examines privity of contract, its relationship with consideration, and the ability of third parties to enforce contractual provisions for their benefit. The doctrine of privity of contract provides that the benefits of a contract can be enjoyed only by the parties to that contract and only parties can suffer the burdens of the contract. At common law, third party beneficiaries could not enforce a contractual provision in their favour so various devices were employed seeking to avoid privity. Statute now allows for direct third party enforcement but in limited circumstances. This chapter examines the background to privity and the attempted statutory reform in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as it has been interpreted in the case law. The chapter also discusses the common law means of avoiding privity as illustrated by the case law, e.g. agency, collateral contracts, and trusts of contractual obligations. Finally it assesses the remedies available to the contracting party to recover on behalf of the third party beneficiary of the promise, including the narrow and broad grounds in Linden Gardens Trust. It concludes by briefly considering privity and burdens—and the exceptional situations where a burden can be imposed on a person who is not a party to the contract.


Author(s):  
Ewan McKendrick

This chapter examines the impact of a contract on third parties. It addresses two main questions: whether or not a third party can acquire any rights under the contract, and whether or not the contract can impose upon him obligations or liabilities. The general rule adopted by English law is that the contract creates rights and imposes obligations only between the parties to the contract: the third party thus neither acquires rights under the contract nor is he subject to liabilities. This general rule is known as the doctrine of privity of contract. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, however, provides a relatively simple mechanism by which contracting parties can confer upon a third party a right to enforce a term of their contract. The dominant philosophy that underpins the 1999 Act is one of freedom of contract and, this being the case, the success of the Act in practice will depend upon contracting parties themselves. The chapter examines the individual sections of the 1999 Act, the exceptions to the doctrine of privity that existed at common law and under various statutes prior to the enactment of the 1999 Act. The chapter concludes by considering the extent to which a third party can be subject to an obligation by a contract to which he is not a party.


2021 ◽  
pp. 377-412
Author(s):  
André Naidoo

This chapter highlights the doctrine of privity of contract; that means it is about the rights and obligations of third parties. The starting point is the basic common law rule of privity. At common law, third parties have no general right to enforce contracts made by others. Likewise, contracts made by others cannot impose obligations on third parties. This is a fairly straightforward principle and is based on sound reasons, but in practice privity has become a complex area. The existence of the rule resulted in a range of clever devices being developed to get around it, all of which are of commercial importance. And the rule against parties enforcing contracts made by others in particular was also severely criticized over the years for various reasons. The basis for such criticism resulted in some partial exceptions being developed in the case law, and ultimately in a statute—namely the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. This complicates matters further because the Act only applies in certain circumstances and its application can be excluded by the terms of the contract. As such, there will be circumstances in which the common law exceptions and devices remain relevant, and they must therefore be studied alongside it.


Author(s):  
ONG Burton

Singapore’s contract law framework, in the context of third party beneficiaries, has stayed faithful to the approach taken under English law. The common law in Singapore has adopted the privity of contract rule, various common law exceptions to the rule, and a statutory regime to empower third parties to enforce contractual terms in prescribed circumstances. The privity rule confines the benefits and burdens under a contract to the contract parties; only they have given consideration and only they can sue and be sued under it. However, various reasons support the third party beneficiary having some right to enforce that benefit and a range of common law mechanisms have been recognized by the courts to allow the third party to do this. Some are true exceptions, others operate by recharacterizing the status of the third party into that of a primary party, thereby eliminating the lack of privity. In cases where the third party may potentially be able to sue the promisor in tort, the basis for loosening the privity doctrine to permit the third party to sue the promisor in contract, and the character of the damages recoverable from the party in breach, requires closer scrutiny.


Contract Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 929-1012
Author(s):  
Ewan McKendrick

This chapter examines the impact of a contract on third parties. It addresses two main questions: whether or not a third party can acquire any rights under the contract, and whether or not the contract can impose upon him obligations or liabilities. The general rule adopted by English law is that the contract creates rights and imposes obligations only between the parties to the contract: the third party thus neither acquires rights under the contract nor is he subject to liabilities. This general rule is known as the doctrine of privity of contract. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, however, provides a relatively simple mechanism by which contracting parties can confer upon a third party a right to enforce a term of their contract. The dominant philosophy that underpins the 1999 Act is one of freedom of contract and, this being the case, the success of the Act in practice will depend upon contracting parties themselves. The chapter examines the individual sections of the 1999 Act, the exceptions to the doctrine of privity that existed at common law and under various statutes prior to the enactment of the 1999 Act. The chapter concludes by considering the extent to which a third party can be subject to an obligation by a contract to which he is not a party.


Author(s):  
Sheng-Lin JAN

This chapter discusses the position of third party beneficiaries in Taiwan law where the principle of privity of contract is well established. Article 269 of the Taiwan Civil Code confers a right on the third party to sue for performance as long as the parties have at least impliedly agreed. This should be distinguished from a ‘spurious contract’ for the benefit of third parties where there is no agreement to permit the third party to claim. Both the aggrieved party and the third party beneficiary can sue on the contract, but only for its own loss. The debtor can only set off on a counterclaim arising from its legal relationship with the third party. Where the third party coerces the debtor into the contract, the contract can be avoided, but where the third party induces the debtor to contract with the creditor by misrepresentation, the debtor can only avoid the contract if the creditor knows or ought to have known of the misrepresentation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document