23. Freehold Covenants

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter investigates how certain covenants relating to land between freehold owners can overcome the normal privity of contract rule and can be enforced by and against third parties. Restrictive covenants significantly control land use and supplement and complement public planning laws. The burden of a negative covenant will not run at common law, but may run in equity by virtue of the rule in Tulk v Moxhay. The benefit of a restrictive covenant will run if it is: expressly assigned; annexed to the land; or subject to a building scheme. The Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal has jurisdiction under s 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to modify or extinguish restrictive covenants. Reform recommendations offer a final acknowledgement that both negative and positive covenants affecting land should be ‘genuine proprietary interests’ rather than ‘a peculiar species of personal contract’.

4. Privity and third party rights

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.

Asas Privity of Contract Dalam Layanan Pinjam Meminjam Uang Berbasis Teknologi Informasi (Studi Kasus pada Penyelenggara DanaRupiah)

One of the manifestation of the emergence of financial technology is the innovation of the lending and borrowing money services based on information technology. This service is provided by company, there are company that illegal and legal. One of the services provider company that is widely complained and suspected to be violating the provisions is DanaRupiah organizer. In the case of default due to the inability of the borrower to repay or default due to the system failure held by the organizer, billing is often carried out to parties who do not know anything about the loan agreement made by the borrower and the lender through the organizing platform. An agreement has privity of contract which an agreement is only valid and binding for parties who made it. This research is legal research using statute approach, conceptual approach and case study. The result of this legal research shows that in the lending and borrowing money services based on information technology the principle of privity of contract is not implemented.Keywords: Lending and Borrowing Agreement; Default; Privity of Contract.AbstrakKemunculan teknologi finansial salah satunya diwujudkan dengan adanya layanan pinjam meminjam uang berbasis teknologi informasi. Layanan ini diselenggarakan oleh perusahaan penyelenggara layanan yang illegal dan legal. Salah satu perusahaan penyelenggara layanan yang banyak diadukan dan diduga melakukan pelanggaran adalah Penyelenggara Dana Rupiah. Dalam terjadinya gagal bayar karena ketidakmampuan peminjam membayar maupun kegagalan pembayaran karena gagalnya sistem oleh penyelenggara ini seringkali penagihan dilakukan kepada pihak yang tidak tahu menahu akan perjanjian pinjaman yang dilakukan oleh penerima pinjaman dan pemberi pinjaman melalui platform penyelenggara. Sebuah perjanjian terdapat asas privity of contract yang mana suatu perjanjian hanya berlaku dan mengikat bagi para pihak yang membuatnya. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum yang disusun dengan menggunakan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konseptual dan studi kasus. Dari penelitian hukum ini, diketahui bahwa dalam layanan pinjam meminjam uang berbasis teknologi informasi asas privity of contract ini tidak diterapkan. Kata Kunci: Perjanjian Pinjam Meminjam; Gagal Bayar; Privity of Contract.

7. Privity of contract and third party rights

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.

7. Privity of contract and third party rights

Course-focused and comprehensive, Poole’s Textbook on Contract Law provides an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. According to the doctrine of privity of contract, only the parties to the contract are bound by, or can enforce, the obligations under the contract. A person who is not a party to a contract does not have any rights under that contract and is not subject to any of its obligations (or burdens). This chapter considers the rules of contract law, and related rules, that are applicable to contracts which stipulate third party rights. It considers the relevant provisions of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the scope of the legislative reform, the test for third party enforceability and how the doctrine of privity of contract is related to the consideration requirement. It also looks at means of circumventing the privity doctrine such as assignment, and exceptions to the privity doctrine such as agency principles as employed in The Eurymedon. The chapter then examines remedies available to the promisee which have the effect of enforcing any promise in favour of a third party beneficiary or enabling substantial damages to be recovered to cover the third party’s loss. Finally, the means by which contractual burdens may bind third parties are examined.

12. Third Party Rights (the Doctrine of Privity)

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.

Irreconcilable perspectives like in an Escher’s drawing? Extension of an arbitration agreement to a non-signatory state and attribution of state entities’ conduct: privity of contract in Swiss and investment arbitral tribunals’ case law

A matter of perspective? When a dispute arises and on the government’s side a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement or investment treaty adopted the contested action, privity of contract and rules of attribution of conduct may apply. Both have been interpreted in different manners. When one put all these interpretations together, the result is a picture of impossible spaces and irreconcilable scenarios like in a drawing of Escher. If Escher expressed his artistic inspiration by challenging gravity and visual logic, practitioners may nowadays find challenging solving the dilemma of when and how an arbitration agreement can be extended to a non-signatory state or the conduct of a state entity be attributed to the state. In its recent decision 4 A_636/2018, the Swiss Supreme Court confirmed its case law that exceptions to the doctrine of privity of contract exist under Swiss law, but these are limited in number and scope. The same applies regardless of whether private or public entities are concerned. This article will examine decision 4 A_636/2018 in light of Swiss case law and draw a comparison with investment arbitral tribunals’ jurisprudence applying rules of attribution of conduct of customary international law when privity of contract lacks on the government’s side.

25. Third Parties

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.

Privity of Contract

The first part of this book covers the liability of a seller of goods for misrepresentations and for breaches of the express and implied terms of a contract of sale. Reference is also made to certain analogous transactions such as contracts for the hire-purchase or hire of goods and contracts for work and materials.