Hoffman v. Palmer: Admissibility at Common Law and under the Model Act of Business Records Made by a Third Party with Incentive to Misrepresent

1942 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 458
Author(s):  
J. M. M.
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Party

Third Party Beneficiary: A Comparative Analysis

1976 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Shalev
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
General Part ◽  
The Common ◽  
Comparative Survey ◽  
The Right

Chapter 4 of the new Israeli Contracts (General Part) Law, 1973, introduces the concept of a contract in favour of a third party, while granting express recognition to the right of a third party beneficiary. Even those, (including the author) who maintain, that the right of a third party beneficiary could and should be derived, even before the commencement of the new Law, from the general principles and premises of the old Israeli law of contract, cannot fail to see in the above-mentioned chapter an important innovation in the Israeli legal system.This paper is a comparative analysis of the institution of third party beneficiary. The analysis will consist of a presentation and critical examination of the central concepts and doctrines involved in the institution under discussion, and it will be combined with a comparative survey of the arrangements adopted in various legal systems. The choice of this approach stems from the particular circumstances of the new legislation.While in most countries, comparative legal research is a luxury, in Israel it is a necessity. The new legislation in private law is inspired to a great extent by Continental codifications. As far as the law of contract is concerned, Israel is now in the process of becoming a “mixed jurisdiction”: departing from the common law tradition and technique, and heading towards an independent body of law, derived from various sources, mainly Continental in both substance and form.

4. Privity and third party rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 72-96
Author(s):  
Jill Poole ◽  
James Devenney ◽  
Adam Shaw-Mellors
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Privity Of Contract

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.

Tracing at Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Calnan
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party

This chapter explains what tracing is. Differing descriptions of the expression are discussed. Tracing does not seek to examine intention; tracing imposes a proprietary interest. The chapter discusses the principles of tracing at common law and how a person becomes a legal owner of a substitute asset. In particular, the rules as to indentification of a substitute asset are discussed. The chapter contains a detailed discussion of the case law on tracing at common law. Attempts to distinguish tracing from ‘following’ are discussed. The chapter distinguishes tracing against the wrongdoer from tracing against a third party.

Introduction

2007 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Chester Brown
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Homogeneous Body ◽  
Short Introduction ◽  
International Courts ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
History Of ◽  
International Adjudication

This chapter gives a short introduction to the history of international dispute settlement by third-party adjudication. It notes that there is a gap in the existing literature, being an examination of procedure and remedies before different international courts, and an answer to the question of whether the same procedural rules obtain, and the same remedies are available, before different international judicial bodies. It presents the book's central thesis — that international courts often adopt common approaches to questions of procedure and remedies, which leads to increasing commonality in the case law of international courts. It then explains that the term ‘common law of international adjudication’ refers to the emergence of an increasingly homogeneous body of rules applied by international courts and tribunals relating to procedure and remedies. It then defines the terms ‘procedure’ and ‘remedies’. It also covers certain selected aspects of international adjudication, and reviews the jurisprudence of certain selected international courts and tribunals.

Modern Variations on the Theme

2020 ◽  
pp. 205-230
Author(s):  
Andrew S. Gold
Keyword(s):  
Decision Maker ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
The Way

This chapter considers contemporary developments in private law. We live in a world that increasingly includes statutory encroachments on common law principles, and some of these revisions alter the way legal claims are pursued. A focus on rights of redress offers different perspectives on several of these developments, sometimes offering grounds for critique and sometimes providing support. This chapter will assess the implications of damage caps, arbitration, litigation finance, corporate claims, and class actions. As will be developed, these contemporary legal features suggest that redress exists along several continuums: it can be more or less private; it can depend on a neutral third-party decision-maker or it can be unilateral; it can be more or less subject to a right holder’s control; and it can be more or less complete. Whichever form redress takes, however, it will also implicate questions of justice. In order to fully appreciate why redress matters, each of these features needs to be assessed.

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.

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.

12. Easements and profits

2020 ◽  
pp. 178-200
Author(s):  
Victoria Sayles
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
The Status

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 easements. An easement gives either a positive or, less often, a negative right of use over land of another (the servient land), which must be seen to benefit a dominant piece of land. A right that is capable of being an easement will only become an easement where it has been acquired by one of the recognised methods of acquisition. Easements may arise through express or implied acquisition. Implied acquisition may arise by virtue of necessity, common intention, operation of s 62 Law of Property Act (LPA) 1925 or under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows (although the latter two methods will not operate in a reservation scenario). Alternatively, an easement may have been acquired out of long use, known as prescription, of which there are three modes: common law, lost modern grant, and the Prescription Act 1832. An easement can be either legal or equitable in status, depending upon which formalities have been satisfied. The status of an easement will determine the relevant rules governing the enforcement of that interest against a third party.

Transferability and sale of goods

Legal Studies ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iwan Davies
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The World ◽  
Property Title ◽  
Complete Specification

In any system of property law a complete specification of rights and duties raises at least two questions. First, allocation of rights and duties inter se between the parties to the transaction; secondly, the rights and duties of the parties to the original transaction against the rest of the world. The traditional common law analysis where a third party wishes to acquire an indefeasible interest in a chattel is to direct the latter to the ‘owner’ and indeed the prerequisite for the enjoyment of most property rights depends upon our ability to acquire it from someone else. Furthermore, inherent in the idea of acquiring an absolute right in property (title) is exclusivity of possession ie superiority over the transferor and third parties.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document