Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Contract Law; Privity and the Rights of Third Parties. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 3 page paper discusses the following statement " by the end of the 1990's the doctrine of privity had few friends, at least that part of it which prevented third parties suing to obtain the benefit which the contracting parties had agreed to confer
on them. There were four principle criticisms levelled against the old Law.... it was therefore no real surprise when the Law Commission (1996) recommendations were finally implemented in the 1999 Act". The paper is written with reference to English law. The bibliography cites 5 sources.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEcon3part.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
allowed to be burdened by a contract obligation where they are not a party to that contract and that any party not party to the contract is not allowed to
claim the benefit from it, even if the contract was made with the single aim of the benefit (McKendrick, 1998). The first of these principles may be fair, it would
be immoral for a contract made by another party to bind an unknowing or unwilling party to obligations. However, the second may be seen as unjust. It may be argued
that this position was placed into common law with the case of Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B & S 393 were a benefit could not be sued for by
a third party, the argument used was that there was no consideration (Card and James, 2000). Later cases such as Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v Selfridge (1915) AC 847 supported
this; again there was no action as there was no consideration. This effectively eliminated third parties from benefiting from contracts. However if
we look at the history books, the link with consideration and the inability of a beneficiary third party take action to enforce a contract we can see that this was
allowed under Dutton v Poole (1677) 2 Lev 211 (Flannigan, 1987). This is also referred to by Denning in the case of Drive Yourself Hire Co (London) Ltd v Strutt
[1954] 1 QB 250. This was not the first time it was criticised, in the case of Smith and Snipes All Farm Ltd
v Rover Douglas Catchment Board [1949] 2 KB 500 it appeared that the former position was being overturned, and a third party was being allowed to take action. Here Lord
...