Mrs. Gore's legacy to commerce

Legal Studies ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-295
Author(s):  
P.J. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Legal Liability ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Commercial World ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Privity Of Contract

It is commonplace in the commercial world for contractual obligations to be performed by persons other than the original parties to the contract. Because of the doctrine of privity of contract persons who are not party to a contract generally cannot take advantage of terms contained in it. If, therefore, a person undertakhg the performance of obligations which someone else has originally assumed misperforms those tasks so as to incur legal liability towards the other original contracting party, it would seem that he cannot rely on a protecting clause in the contract even though that clause may purport to afford him cover. A variety of avenues of escape from this situation (which is often commerically inconvenient) have been at various times advocated: the doctrine of vicarious immunity and the trust idea have been explored and eventually rejected. Other methods of avoidance retain more vigour: we have probably not heard the last of arguments based on the doctrines of volenti non fit injuria and disclaimer, of the bailment on terms and of the idea of spelling out a separate contract (or offer) between the party now suing and the third party.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties Under the Taiwan Civil Code

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheng-Lin JAN
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Privity Of Contract

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.

Optimal trade-in and third-party collection authorization strategies under trade-in subsidy policy

Kybernetes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 854-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaiying Cao ◽  
Qiushi Bo ◽  
Yi He
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Profit Maximization ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Subsidy Policy ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Third ◽  
Optimal Decisions ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose This paper aims to study whether the recycling of a third party competes with the trade-in service of a manufacturer, and explores the optimal trade-in and third-party collection authorization strategies for the manufacturer. Design/methodology/approach According to whether to authorize a third party to collect its used products, the manufacturer has two choices: one is not authorization (NA); the other is authorization (A). This paper uses profit-maximization model to investigate the optimal decisions of the manufacturer and the third party under NA and A, respectively, and then explores which choice is better for the manufacturer. Findings It is observed that there is a competition between trade-in service and third-party recycling when the durability parameter of the used product is relatively small. Moreover, when the durability parameter of the used product is relatively large, A is always better choice for the manufacturer; otherwise, NA is a better choice except for the case that the unit trade-in subsidy is low and the salvage of the used product is high. Practical implications These results provide managerial insights for the manufacturer and the third party to make decisions in the field of recycling. Originality/value This paper is among the first papers to study the competition between trade-in program and third party’s collecting program under government’s trade-in subsidy policy. Moreover, this paper presents the conditions under which the manufacturer should authorize or not authorize the third party to collect its used products.

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.

scholarly journals Kolizyjnoprawna problematyka skuteczności przelewu wierzytelności wobec osób trzecich — projekt rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie prawa właściwego dla skutków przelewu wierzytelności wobec osób trzecich (COM(2018) 96 final)

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 67-90
Author(s):  
Witold Kurowski
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Rome I

The question of which law should govern the third-party effects of assignments of claims was considered during the preparation of the Rome I Regulation. The European Commission’s proposal for the Rome I Regulation admitted the law of the assignor’s habitual residence as the law that should apply to the proprietary effects of assignments of claims. Finally, EU Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations did not include the issue of the third-party effects of the assignment. However, Article 27(2) of the Rome I Regulation required the European Commission to present a report on the question of the effectiveness of assignments of claims against third parties accompanied, if appropriate, by a proposal to amend the Rome I Regulation. Proposal for a Regulation on the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims (COM(2018) 96 final) is a response to this request. This paper analyses current draft of the new EU Regulation, the rules on determination of the third-party effects of assignments of claims (law of the assignor’s habitual residence and law of the assigned claim) and "super conflict rules" in specific cases. The author argues that the law of the assignor’s habitual residence remains the appropriate conflict rule for proprietary effects of assignments of claims.

scholarly journals La politique comme le lieu de l’universalisation de l’exigence éthique chez Levinas

2022 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-181
Author(s):  
Ericbert Tambou Kamgue
Keyword(s):  
Final Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
The Third ◽  
Ethical Subjectivity ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Ethical Requirement

Levinasian philosophy is characterized as a philosophy of ethical subjectivity and asymmetrical responsibility. Ethics is understood as the subject that gives itself entirely to the Other. However, the Other is never alone. His face attests to the presence of a third party who, looking at me in his eyes, cries for justice. There is no longer any question for the subject to devote himself entirely to the Other (ethical justice), to give everything to him at the risk of appearing empty-handed before the third party. How then to serve both the Other and the third party? The question of the political appears in the thought of Levinas with the emergence of the third party who, like the Other, challenges me and commands me (social justice). The third party establishes a political space. Politics is in the final analysis the place of the universalization of the ethical requirement born from face-to-face with the face of the Other.

, cases such as White v Jones will not come to be regarded as actions in contract, since it must be the contract between the relevant contracting parties which expressly or impliedly confers a benefit on the third party and, in White v Jones, it was the will, rather than the contract which conferred the relevant benefit. The second question above asks if T can seek to rely on a defence contained in the contract between A and B in an action brought against him by A or B. Typically, such cases will involve the question of whether T is entitled to the protection of an exemption clause. Many commercial transactions involve many parties. Typical examples include international trade dealings under which there is a complex of relations between the buyer, seller, carrier and other parties involved in the process of shipment of a cargo. Similarly, many contracts entered into for the purposes of the construction of a building or a ship may involve a number of subcontractors as well as the party commissioning the work and the main contractor. These multipartite relationships are often difficult to explain in terms of traditional rules of the law of contract which appear to treat the two-party contract as the norm. Where exemption clauses are concerned, a simple application of the doctrine of privity of contract would suggest that a third party cannot claim the benefit of such a provision if it is part of a contract between two other parties. If a firm of stevedores, employed by a carrier to unload a cargo, negligently damages goods carried under the terms of a contract of carriage made between the consignor of goods and the carrier, the question may arise whether the stevedore, in an action brought by the purchaser of the cargo, can claim the benefit of an exclusion clause in the contract between the consignor and the carrier which purports to protect both the carrier and the stevedore. Commercial reality suggests that if the risk of loss or damage to a cargo has already passed to the buyer then he should be insured against that risk. Accordingly, since there is likely to be a valid insurance policy covering the risk of damage in the course of unloading, it makes commercial sense for the stevedores to be able to claim the protection of the exemption clause. However, a rigid application of the doctrine of privity of contract in this type of case would mean that the stevedores could be sued for the damage to the cargo despite the fact that the buyer was insured against that risk. The commercial reality approach suggests that there should be a doctrine of vicarious immunity under which the third party may rely upon an exemption clause in a contract to which he is not a party, provided it is the intention of all concerned that the benefit should be extended to such a person. However, the doctrine of vicarious immunity was later rejected by the House of Lords in Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd, where the

1995 ◽  
pp. 772-772
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Simple Application ◽  
Insurance Policy ◽  
The Third ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Privity Of Contract

Guarantee and Indemnity

2021 ◽  
pp. 280-294
Author(s):  
Hannah McCarthy
Keyword(s):  
Construction Industry ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Essential Characteristic ◽  
The Third ◽  
Specific Event ◽  
The Third Party

This chapter tackles guarantee or bond, which has no definitive judicial definition but is widely held to be a contract in which the guarantor agrees to be answerable for the debt or default of another to a third party. It cites the primary obligation of a third party that is underwritten by the guarantor as an essential characteristic of a guarantee. It also explains how the guarantor becomes answerable for the faults of the third party. This chapter talks about the indemnitor that undertakes a primary liability to another party in order to indemnify the other party against a specific event, which may or may not involve the act or default of a third party. It points out that the indemnity contained in construction sub-contracts is the most frequently used form of indemnity in the construction industry.

20. Personal Liability of Third Parties

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Virgo
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Personal Liability

This chapter examines the personal liability of third parties when there is a breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty. It explains that there are two types of personal liability of third parties. One is receipt-based liability when a third party has received property in which the beneficiary or principal has an equitable proprietary interest and the other is accessorial liability when the third party has encouraged or assisted a breach of a trust or fiduciary duty. The elements of different causes of action relevant to receipt-based liability and accessorial liability are examined, notably the action for unconscionable receipt and the action of dishonest assistance. The controversial question of whether liability should be strict or fault-based is considered and, if the latter, the nature of the fault requirement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document