|
Privity (law)
''Privity'' is a common law doctrine that governed the liability and obligations of contracting parties. Once an important concept in contract law, these relationships and obligations now fall within the scope of modern statutory laws, diminishing its relevance to modern proceedings. 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 ... [...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 anyone who is not a party to that contract. It is related to, but distinct from, the doctrine of consideration, according to which a promise is legally enforceable only if valid consideration has been provided for it, and a plaintiff is legally entitled to enforce such a promise only if they are a promisee from whom the consideration has moved. A principal consequence of the doctrine of privity is that, at common law, a third party generally has no right to enforce a contract to which they are not a party, even where that contract was entered into by the contracting parties specifically for their benefit and with a common intention among all of them that they should be able to enforce it. In England & Wales and Northern Ireland, the doctrine has been substantially weakened by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, which created a s ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Norwich City Council V Harvey
''Norwich City Council v Harvey'' is a 1989 English law case on the waiver of liability in negligence. Facts After inviting tenders, the plaintiff, Norwich CC, engaged a contractor to build an extension to their swimming pool complex. Clause 20A in the contract declared that the works were at the sole risk of Norwich CC, as regards loss or damage by fire; and that Norwich CC would arrange adequate insurance cover against those risks. Presumably Norwich CC wanted to ensure that the insurance was "in their own hands", and it also meant that the contractors could exclude insurance costings from their tender. The contractor engaged a sub-contractor to carry out felting work on the new roof. An employee of the subcontractor used a blow-torch carelessly and set fire to both the existing buildings and the new extension, causing extensive damage. Norwich CC's insurer was reluctant to bear the cost of the loss, arguing that the negligent party should be liable instead. Decision Altho ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Third Party Beneficiary
A third-party beneficiary, in the civil 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 ... [...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 claimant 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 doctr ... [...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 Leslie Scarman, Baron Scarman, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Federal Common Law
Federal common law is a term of United States law used to describe common law that is developed by the federal courts, instead of by the courts of the various states. Ever since Louis Brandeis, writing for the Supreme Court of the United States in '' Erie Railroad v. Tompkins'' (1938), overturned Joseph Story's decision in '' Swift v. Tyson'', federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction have applied state law as the substantive laws, with few exceptions. Nevertheless, there are several areas where federal common law continues to govern. The ''Swift'' doctrine Until 1938, federal courts in the United States followed the doctrine set forth in the 1842 case of '' Swift v. Tyson''. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts hearing cases brought under their diversity jurisdiction (allowing them to hear cases between parties from different U.S. states) had to apply the statutory law of the states, but not the common law developed by state courts. Inste ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Chase Manhattan Bank
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase, is an American national bank headquartered in New York City that constitutes the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the U.S. multinational banking and financial services holding company, JPMorgan Chase. The bank was known as Chase Manhattan Bank until it merged with J.P. Morgan & Co. in 2000. Chase Manhattan Bank was formed by the merger of the Chase National Bank and the Manhattan Company in 1955. The bank merged with Chemical Bank New York in 1996 and later merged with Bank One Corporation in 2004 and in 2008 acquired the deposits and most assets of Washington Mutual. In May 2023, it acquired the assets of First Republic Bank. Chase offers more than 4,701 branches and 15,000 ATMs nationwide and has 18.5 million checking accounts and 25 million debit card users as of 2023. JPMorgan Chase & Co. has 250,355 employees (as of 2016) and operates in more than 100 countries. JPMorgan Chase & Co. had assets of $3.31 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Claim Preclusion
''Res judicata'' or ''res iudicata'', also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for ''judged matter'', and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: 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 litigant, 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. It is similar to the concept of double jeopardy and ''non bis in idem'' in crim ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Commissioner V
A commissioner (commonly abbreviated as Comm'r) is, in principle, a member of a commission or an individual who has been given a Wiktionary: commission, commission (official charge or authority to do something). In practice, the title of commissioner has evolved to include a variety of senior officials, often sitting on a specific commission. In particular, the commissioner frequently refers to senior police or government officials. A high commissioner is equivalent to an ambassador, originally between the United Kingdom and the Dominions and now between all Commonwealth states, whether Commonwealth realms, republics in the Commonwealth of Nations, republics or countries having a monarch other than that of the realms. The title is sometimes given to senior officials in the private sector; for instance, many North American sports leagues. There is some confusion between commissioners and commissary, commissaries because other European languages use the same word for both. Therefore ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Res Judicata
''Res judicata'' or ''res iudicata'', also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for ''judged matter'', and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: 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 litigant, 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. It is similar to the concept of double jeopardy and ''non bis in idem'' in crim ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
US Law
The law of the United States comprises many levels of Codification (law), codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the supreme law is the nation's Constitution of the United States, Constitution, which prescribes the foundation of the federal government of the United States, federal government of the United States, as well as various civil liberties. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of Act of Congress, Acts of Congress, treaty, treaties ratified by the United States Senate, Senate, regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the United States federal courts, federal judiciary. The United States Code is the official compilation and Codification (law), codification of general and permanent federal statutory law. The Constitution provides that it, as well as federal laws and treaties that are made pursuant to it, preempt conflicting state and territorial laws in the 50 U.S. states and in the territor ... [...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 bill of lading, 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)'' [1954]. 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 boatswain, bosun in negligence. The defendants sought ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
