3. Special duty problems: omissions and acts of third parties

2019 ◽  
pp. 49-59
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Common ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter discusses the problem of when a duty of care arises in respect of negligent omissions, or for the actions of a third party. The common law takes the view that it would be too great a burden to impose liability upon a person for a mere omission, or for the actions of others. Despite this, duties can in fact be imposed in various ways, all of which focus on the reliance of the claimant upon the defendant. This can come about either by the previous conduct of the defendant, which induces reliance by the claimant that the defendant will continue to act in that way, or by reliance which comes out of a relationship of dependence between the parties. As regards third parties, a duty may arise where the defendant has control over or responsibility for the third party’s actions.

3. Special duty problems: omissions and acts of third parties

2021 ◽  
pp. 50-61
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Common ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter discusses the problem of when a duty of care arises in respect of negligent omissions, or for the actions of a third party. The common law takes the view that it would be too great a burden to impose liability upon a person for a mere omission, or for the actions of others. Despite this, duties can in fact be imposed in various ways, all of which focus on the reliance of the claimant upon the defendant. This can come about either by the previous conduct of the defendant, which induces reliance by the claimant that the defendant will continue to act in that way, or by reliance which comes out of a relationship of dependence between the parties. As regards third parties, a duty may arise where the defendant has control over or responsibility for the third party’s actions.

3. Special duty problems: omissions and acts of third parties

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Common ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter discusses the problem of when a duty of care arises in respect of negligent omissions, or for the actions of a third party. The common law takes the view that it would be too great a burden to impose liability upon a person for a mere omission, or for the actions of others. Despite this, duties can in fact be imposed in various ways, all of which focus on the reliance of the claimant upon the defendant. This can come about either by the previous conduct of the defendant, which induces reliance by the claimant that the defendant will continue to act in that way, or by reliance which comes out of a relationship of dependence between the parties. As regards third parties, a duty may arise where the defendant has control over or responsibility for the third party’s actions.

7. Privity of contract and third party rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 307-358
Author(s):  
Robert Merkin ◽  
Séverine Saintier
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Privity Of Contract

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.

Conditions in Favour of Third Parties

1952 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-257
Author(s):  
T. C. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party

The purpose of this article is to consider the legal effects of a transfer of property by A to B subject to the performance by B of some obligation in favour of C, a third party to the transfer. The student of the law of contract is well familiar with the common law rule that no one who was not an original party to the contract is entitled to the benefit of that contract. But this rule creates hardship in particular cases and it has been shown that, in the main, three methods have been evolved to evade those unfortunate results. First, the legislature has intervened and provided C, the third party, with statutory rights. Secondly, the doctrine of agency has been invoked whereby C may claim that he is the principal of B. Thirdly, but with varying success, the trust concept has been pressed into service whereby C has sometimes been able to show that he is a beneficiary.

11. Privity of contract and third party rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 519-570
Author(s):  
Robert Merkin ◽  
Séverine Saintier
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Privity Of Contract ◽  
Selection Of

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.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties: The Singapore Law Perspectives

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
ONG Burton
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Privity Of Contract

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.

4. Special duty problems: omissions and acts of third parties

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Special Duty

This chapter examines two separate but closely linked concepts of liability for omissions and for the actions of third parties. The first section considers when and how the courts have found that a duty of care should be owed by defendants when the harm was the result of their omission, and the second explores the situations when a defendant may owe a duty in relation to the action(s) of a third party.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties: Hong Kong

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Mason
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Strict Adherence ◽  
The Third ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Contractual Rights

This chapter analyses the law on third party beneficiaries in Hong Kong long characterized by strict adherence to the traditional common law doctrine of privity. The law relating to third party rights was only reformed by way of Ordinance in 2016, along the lines of the statutory reform of English law in 1999. A small number of specifically enumerated types of contract are excluded from the scope of the Ordinance; other contracts may be concluded to confer enforceable contractual rights on third parties. Whether a third party may enforce a term of a contract depends on the interpretation of the contract: if the third party right was not expressly conferred there is a presumption that the conferral was intended; but this can be rebutted if the parties made it clear that they did not intend it to be enforceable. The third party must be identified by name, as a member of a class, or answering a particular description and may claim the same remedies for breach as a party to the contract.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties in Malaysia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Fung
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
The Common ◽  
Clear Statement

This chapter examines the Malaysian position on privity and third party beneficiaries. Given that the Malaysian Contracts Act 1950 (‘MCA 1950’) is virtually a copy of the Indian Contract Act 1872, the issues are, unsurprisingly, similar. The absence of a clear statement of the rule in the MCA 1950 meant that its existence was susceptible to challenge. It was only in Kepong Prospecting Ltd v Schmidt, when the Privy Council pronounced on the fundamentality of the privity rule, that the matter was finally settled. This chapter demonstrates the ingenuity and the limitations of the common law. The strategy of finding an express trust of a promise finds a familiar trajectory in the use of that strategy in England. The need to prove the three certainties of intention to create a trust, beneficiaries, and subject matter emphasizes the clear intention to create property rights. An alternative explored by the author relates to the institutional constructive trust which requires a proprietary base by which the constructive trust may be found.

LEGAL STATUS OF THIRD PARTIES TO A CONTRACT IN ENGLISH LAW

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-53
Author(s):  
Алексей Чурилов ◽  
Aleksei Churilov
Keyword(s):  
Special Interest ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Third Party

This article covers basics of the legal status of third parties in English common law, in particular, from the established in 1861 socalled privity rule viewpoint. The author explains some of developed by court exceptions, which established a possibility to enforce contract by a third party, and a possibility to recover damages by the third party. Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 is of special interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document