Privity Of Conract

Question 1

The original rule

Answer 1

Only those who are party to contract are bound by it and can benefit from I the concept of privity was set in Dunlop v selfridge

Question 2

The original rule case

Answer 2

Dunlop v selfridge
Held: as Dunlop were not party to contract between dew and selfridge they were not permitted sue

Question 3

The original rule AO3

Answer 3

P: the decision I’d fair because judges are sticking to the strict rule promoting consistency
DP: gives lay people the ability to predict their outcome in advance with any or much legal advise
WDP: however this is outdated as using this rule could lead to injustice and judges should have more flexibility

Question 4

Beswick v Beswick

Answer 4

Held: the aunt was unable to claim as she wasn’t party to the agreement the contract was between the nephew and uncle

Question 5

Beswick v Beswick AO3

Answer 5

P:those who are or not party to a claim should not be allowed to sue as this would open the floodgates to frivolous claims
DP: the law protect us from unjust outcomes that anyone can claim, regardless of whether or not they had any involvement in the creation of the contract. This upholds public policy.
WDP: The current law does not take into consideration circumstances, where a party to the contract may die and their family members want to sue on behalf, for example in Beswick v Beswick this leads to unjust outcomes

Question 6

Case for the court allows him to claim damages for his family

Answer 6

Jackson V horizon holidays

Question 7

Jackson V horizon holidays

Answer 7

Held: the court allows mr Jackson to claim damages for him and his family

Question 8

Jackson V horizon holidays AO3

Answer 8

P: the decision is correct, because Mr Jackson booked the holidays, and presumably paid it on behalf of the family, so he should be able to claim on their behalf. This uphold public policy.
DP: if the family had to make separate claims, this would burden the courts with lots of separate claims for the same issue
WDP: however, this decision creates inconsistency as it goes against the rule/principal that you cannot claim on behalf of somebody else conflict with the law
VWDP: lawyers will not be able to advise clients on the outcome of their case

Question 9

General exceptions

Answer 9

Collateral contracts
Agency
Restrictive covenants
Statutory exceptions

Question 10

Collateral contracts

Answer 10

The court can avoid the rule of privity. If there is a collateral contract. A collateral contract is an agreement which runs alongside the main agreement. It will either have a party into an agreement or it can be a term which has been followed as part of the original contract.

Question 11

Case for Collateral contracts

Answer 11

Shanklin Pier v detel
Held: there was no property of contract between the pier company and detel but the courts held there to be a collateral contract The contract meant that the pier company could still claim, even though the contract was made directly between c and d there was consideration for a collateral contract as the pier company told the contractor to use detel

Question 12

Agency

Answer 12

When an agent is permitted to make a contract on behalf of another the principle is still bound by the terms of the contract even though they didn’t make it, the principal and the agent are treated as the same person

Question 13

Restrictive covenant

Answer 13

Under land law when land is purchased the seller and purchaser conforming agreement regarding what can be done under the land this is restrictive covenant

Question 14

Restrictive covenant case

Answer 14

Tulk v moxhay
Held: tulk could enforce the covenant against moxhay even though there wasn’t a direct contract between them

Question 15

Restrictive covenant be AO3

Answer 15

P: fair decisions are reached by allowing those who are not privy to the contract to claim
DP: example in collateral contracts, those are not privy to the contract can still claim, even though they are not involved in the creation of the main agreement this leads to fair and just decisions upholding public policy
WDP: allows those who are not privy to the contract access to justice. The law has developed within modern times to reflect situations involving restrictive covenant and collateral contracts

Question 16

Statutory exceptions ALWAYS INCLUDEEEEEE

Answer 16

contracts (right of third-party) act, 1999 (Crypta)
This act modified the rule of privity which was established in Dunlop v Selfridge
The act allows someone (a third party) who is not party to contract to sue one or both parties if:
The contract states that the third party shall have rights s1(1)(a) OR
The contract term is an attempt to confer a benefit to a third party s1(1)(b)
S1(2) the. At will not apply if it appears that the parties did not intend a third party to have rights
S.1(3) the third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name

Question 17

Statutory exceptions exclusion

Answer 17

Parties can include a term in the contract states that they excluding that of the agreement. The courts will decide if this is reasonable if there is no third party to rely on the act