|
Privity
Privity is the legal term for a close, mutual, or successive relationship to the same right of property or the power to enforce a promise or warranty. It is an important concept in contract law. Contract law {{main article, Privity of contract The principle of privity in the common law's law of contract dictates that persons may not reap the benefits nor suffer the burdens of a contract to which they were not a party. Under the doctrine, if a consumer bought goods from a retailer who had originally bought them from the manufacturer, then, if the goods proved faulty, the consumer should sue the retailer. The consumer could not sue the manufacturer in contract law because no contract existed between them. The retailer could then counterclaim against the manufacturer. In most cases, however, consumers may rely on the manufacturer's guarantee that will have been assigned to them. In England, the leading privity case was ''Tweddle v Atkinson'' 861EWHC J57 (QB), but this case immedia ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Privity In English Law
Privity is a doctrine in English contract law that covers the relationship between parties to a contract and other parties or agents. At its most basic level, the rule is that a contract can neither give rights to, nor impose obligations on, anyone who is not a party to the original agreement, i.e. a "third party". Historically, third parties could enforce the terms of a contract, as evidenced in '' Provender v Wood'', but the law changed in a series of cases in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the most well known of which are ''Tweddle v Atkinson'' in 1861 and '' Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Selfridge and Co Ltd'' in 1915. The doctrine was widely seen as unfair, for various reasons – it made no exception for cases where the parties to a contract obviously intended for it to be enforced by a third party, and it was so inconsistently applied that it provided no solid rule and was therefore "bad" law. The doctrine attracted criticism from figures such as Lord Scarman, Lord Denning, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Contracts (Rights Of Third Parties) Act 1999
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (c. 31) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that significantly reformed the common law doctrine of privity and "thereby emovedone of the most universally disliked and criticised blots on the legal landscape".Dean (2000) p.143 The second rule of the doctrine of privity, that a third party could not enforce a contract for which he had not provided consideration, had been widely criticised by lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary. Proposals for reform via an act of Parliament were first made in 1937 by the Law Revision Committee in their Sixth Interim Report. No further action was taken by the government until the 1990s, when the Law Commission proposed a new draft bill in 1991, and presented their final report in 1996. The bill was introduced to the House of Lords in December 1998, and moved to the House of Commons on 14 June 1999. It received royal assent on 11 November 1999, coming into force immediately a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Privity Of Contract
The doctrine of privity of contract is a common law principle which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages as such. However, the doctrine has proven problematic because of its implications for contracts made for the benefit of third parties who are unable to enforce the obligations of the contracting parties. In England and Wales, the doctrine has been substantially weakened by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, which created a statutory exception to privity (enforceable third party rights). Third party rights Privity of contract occurs only between the parties to the contract, most commonly contract of sale of goods or services. Horizontal privity arises when the benefits from a contract are to be given to a third party. Vertical privity involves a contract between two part ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tweddle V Atkinson
is an English contract law case concerning the principle of privity of contract and consideration. Its panel of appeal judges reinforced that the doctrine of privity meant that only those who are party to an agreement (outside of one of the well-established exceptional relationships such as agency, bailment or trusteeship) may sue or be sued on it and established the principle that "consideration must flow from the promisee". Facts John Tweddle and William Guy mutually agreed in writing to pay sums of money (£100 and £200, respectively) to Tweddle's son William (who was engaged to Guy's daughter). Guy then died before payment, and when the estate would not pay, William Tweddle then sued Mr Atkinson, the executor of Guy's estate, for the promised £200. Judgment The court held that the suit would not succeed as no stranger to the consideration may enforce a contract, although made for his benefit. The court ruled that a promisee cannot bring an action unless the consideration ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Scruttons Ltd V Midland Silicones Ltd
is a leading House of Lords case on privity of contract. It was a test case in which it was sought to establish a basis upon which stevedores could claim the protection of exceptions and limitations contained in a bill of lading contract to which they were not party. The Court outlined an exception to the privity rule, known as the Lord Reid test, through agency as it applies to sub-contractors and employees seeking protection in their employers' contract. Facts Scruttons Ltd was shipping a load of crates through a carrier. In the contract between the two parties there was a limitation of liability clause for $500 (£179) per box. The goods were damaged in transit due to the negligence of the stevedores. The stevedores were under contract with the shipping company which contained an exclusion clause. Midland were unaware of the relationship between the carriers and the stevedores. Judgment At first blush, it was clear to the Court that the stevedores could not be exempted by t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Common Law
In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions."The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi sovereign that can be identified," ''Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen'', 244 U.S. 205, 222 (1917) (Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting). By the early 20th century, legal professionals had come to reject any idea of a higher or natural law, or a law above the law. The law arises through the act of a sovereign, whether that sovereign speaks through a legislature, executive, or judicial officer. The defining characteristic of common law is that it arises as precedent. Common law courts look to the past decisions of courts to synthesize the legal principles of past cases. ''Stare decisis'', the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules s ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Privity Of Estate
Privity of estate is a mutual or successive legal relationship to the same right in real property, such as the relationship between a landlord and tenant. Thus, privity of estate refers to the legal relationship that two parties bear when their estates constitute one estate in law. Privity of estate involves rights and duties that run with the land if original parties intend to bind successors, and the rights touch and concern the land. Privity of estate traces the land of plaintiff and defendant back to a common owner, who imposed the restriction on the land's use. That is referred to as "vertical privity." Within the context of a landlord-tenant relationship, tenant generally cannot transfer the tenancy or privity of estate between himself and his landlord without the landlord's consent. An assignee who comes into privity of estate is liable only while he continues to be the legal assignee: while he is in possession under the assignment. See also * Privity of contract The doc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Assignment (law)
An assignment is a legal term used in the context of the law of contract and of property. In both instances, assignment is the process e whereby a person, the ''assignor'', transfers rights or benefits to another, the ''assignee''.For the assignment of claim seTrans-Lex.org/ref> An assignment may not transfer a duty, burden or detriment without the express agreement of the assignee. The right or benefit being assigned may be a gift (such as a waiver) or it may be paid for with a contractual consideration such as money. The rights may be vested or contingent,. and may include an equitable interest. Mortgages and loans are relatively straightforward and amenable to assignment. An assignor may assign rights, such as a mortgage note issued by a third party borrower, and this would require the latter to make repayments to the assignee. A related concept of assignment is novation wherein, by agreement with all parties, one contracting party is replaced by a new party. While novat ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Adler V Dickson
A Himalaya clause is a contractual provision expressed to be for the benefit of a third party who is not a party to the contract. Although theoretically applicable to any form of contract, most of the jurisprudence relating to Himalaya clauses relate to maritime matters, and exclusion clauses in bills of lading for the benefit of employees, crew, and agents, stevedores in particular. The ''Himalaya'' case The clause takes its name from a decision of the English Court of Appeal in the case of ''Adler v Dickson (The Himalaya)'' 954 The claimant, Mrs Adler, was a passenger on a voyage on the . At the port of Trieste, she was injured when a gangway came adrift, throwing her onto the quayside, 18 feet below. The passenger ticket contained non-responsibility clauses exempting the carrier, as follows: Being unable to sue the steamship company in contract, Mrs Adler instead sued the master of the ship and the bosun in negligence. The defendants sought to rely on the protection of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
NZ Shipping Co Ltd V A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd
''New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd. v. A. M. Satterthwaite & Co. Ltd.'', or ''The Eurymedon'' () is a leading case on contract law by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This 1974 case establishes the conditions when a third party may seek the protection of an exclusion clause in a contract between two parties. Facts A drilling machine was to be shipped from Liverpool to Wellington, New Zealand. The bill of lading stipulated the limited liability of the carrier. It further stated that the clause would extend to servants, agents, and any independent contractors, which is often referred to as a "Himalaya clause". The carrier company was a subsidiary of the company that also owned the stevedore operation that unloaded the drill. Due to negligence the stevedores damaged the drill while unloading it. The stevedores claimed protection of the immunity clause in the contract between the carrier and Satterthwaite. Judgement This case had facts on all fours with the earlier House of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Third Party Beneficiary
A third-party beneficiary, in the law of contracts, is a person who may have the right to sue on a contract, despite not having originally been an active party to the contract. This right, known as a ''ius quaesitum tertio'', arises when the third party ('' tertius'' or ''alteri'') is the intended beneficiary of the contract, as opposed to a mere incidental beneficiary (''penitus extraneus''). It vests when the third party relies on or assents to the relationship, and gives the third party the right to sue either the promisor (''promittens'', or performing party) or the promisee (''stipulans'', or anchor party) of the contract, depending on the circumstances under which the relationship was created. A contract made in favor of a third party is known as a "third-party beneficiary contract." Under traditional common law, the ''ius quaesitum tertio'' principle was not recognized, instead relying on the doctrine of privity of contract, which restricts rights, obligations, and liabili ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Res Judicata
''Res judicata'' (RJ) or ''res iudicata'', also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter decided" and refers to either of two concepts in both civil law and common law legal systems: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties. In the case of ''res judicata'', the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use ''res judicata'' to deny reconsideration of a matter. The doctrine of ''res judicata'' is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of judicial resources. ''Res judicata'' does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion. Common law In common law jurisdictions, the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.png "Click for more on -> Common Law")