• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Privity. The rule of privity has developed significantly in the law of contract, over the twentieth century, due to fundamental chances in statute and the development of case law.

Free essay example:

Privity  Essay Question

        The rule of privity has developed significantly in the law of contract, over the twentieth century, due to fundamental chances in statute and the development of case law.

        Under the rule of privity, only a party to the contract can have obligation/burden under it. Further only a party to a contract can benefit from it, even if both parties agree in the contract that there will be a benefit for a third party. According to Trielel, ‘a contract cannot confer rights, and secondly improve liability on anyone that isn’t a party to it.’

        The case of Tweddle v Atkinson highlights these sentiments clearly.  Fundamentally it was considered, only the person who has provided consideration had the right to enforce a promise, despite the fact it was expressly stated William Tweddle had “full power to sue for aforesaid sums, specified”.

        Coupton J stated, “The consideration must move from the party untitled to sue upon the contract.” It was deemed even by getting married T had not provided sufficient consideration and could not sue. Further, quite relevantly argued T was not a ‘party to the contract’ and perhaps this was because he did not provide sufficient consideration.

        A further establishment of the rule of privity was given by the Judgement of Viscount Haldane in the case of Dunlop v Selfridge. In the decision Dunlop’s action failed because they had provided no consideration to Selfridge. Crucially, however, Viscount Haldane stated it is a fundamental principle that ‘only a person who is a party to a contract may sue upon it’. Dunlop were not the party between Selfridge and Dew, in which Selfridge undertook not to sell below list price and could not enforce it for that reason.

        The cases of Tweddle v Atkinson and Dunlop v Selfridge, are arguments to suggest privity ensures ‘consideration under contract, so no party can have a ‘free ride’ and the third parties cannot benefit from a contract they are not part of.

        Prior to the contracts (rights of third parties) Act 1999, the battle over privity was rather one-sided, third parties therefore had to find ways of evading the privity rule, as an attempt to solve their injustice.

        The simplest way to enforce the benefit provided to a third party is to obtain specific performance, compelling the promisor to carry out the promise, benefiting the third party. This was highlighted in the case of Beswick v Beswick. Specific performance is normally available when damages are an inadequate remedy; however this is not always the case. Lord Denning was very much in favour of allowing the contracting party to recover damages on behalf of a third party’s loss, which was highlighted in the case of Jackson v Horizon Holidays. In Moodar v Wimpy, the HOL took a different view making clear there was no general rule allowing a contracting party to recover damages on behalf on a third party’s loss. It is also recognised an exception in constitution contracts where the building will pass to a third party who are likely to suffer loss if there are defects, as seen in the case of (Linden gardens). However this exception is not needed and therefore will not apply where the third party had a separate remedy directly against the promisor, McAlpine and Panatown.

        There are further actions around privity adverse to the rights of only the contracting parties as in Tweddelle v Atkinson and Dunlop v Selfridge, these directly apply rights to a third party. These are Agency, an agent will direct contractual relationship between a third party and his principle, acting on his Authority. Assignments. Collateral contracts, the use of this concept to evade privity are well illustrated by the case of Shanklin Pier v Detel, referring to existing duties to a third party. ‘Trust of promise’ is not generally used but is sometimes the case in shipping, Les Affreteurs Remis V Walford. Bills of exchange. Specific statutory exceptions to privity i.e. Road Traffic Act 1988 and actions in Tort, White v Jones provide exceptions to the rule of privity; however, they do not normally amount to enforcing a contract.

        The main criticisms of privity are; it is unfair that a party is able to get away from making a promise to pay, receiving a benefit, and then not paying up. It could be argued the doctrine of privity contradicts the principle of freedom of contract, if anyone can choose to make whatever contracts they may, why is the third party so restricted where privity is concerned.

        As stated by Trettle, the battle over privity finally came to head in the Contracts Right of Third Party Act. The courts no longer need to get around the doctrine of privity; however the act does not abolish the rule of privity.

        The act creates two situations where a third party can sue to enforce a contractual term. !It is based on the intentions of the parties that the third parties should be able to sue another expressly, (S.1.a) or as presumed from the fact of the inclusion of a term benefitting the third party. (s.1.b) These terms are enforceable by third parties. Further, the act states parties can exclude the inclusion of this act in their contract, so the common law and the statutory exception will still apply where the act has been excluded.

The privity rule performs a necessary function in contract, but can also work so as to create injustice. However, developments in the new century have largely receded the possibility of the privity rule operating unjustly. Although there are some contracts to which the act is inapplicable. The full effects of the act are still to be seen, especially its impact on common law. However, development in common law and statute most certainly seen a progressive solution to the, ‘battle of privity’.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Contract section.

(?)
Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Related AS and A Level Law Skills and Knowledge Essays

See our best essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Contract essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "The requirement of consideration is an unnecessary complication in the formation of contracts."

    4 star(s)

    without the existence of consideration, a promise shall be deemed to be enforceable. An estoppel prevents the promisor/representor from acting inconsistently with an assumption that the promiser had represented without taking steps to ensure that the departure does not cause harm to the representee.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    if she does not do so, then the building society will claim the instalments from the father's estate and the estate will have to pay them. I cannot think that in those circumstances the estate would be bound to transfer the house to them, any more than the father himself would have been."

  1. Four ways in which a contract may be discharged.

    Herne-Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 146. The defendant chartered a ship to see the coronation naval review and to tour the fleet. The review was cancelled but the fleet was still in port. (f) Supervening Illegality. This will arise where, between the completion of the contract and the performance of it, it becomes illegal to perform it.

  2. Contract Law [I] Formative Essay

    But, if the advert was merely an advertising ploy then why did Alan actually go and print the T-Shirts? Following that of Carlhill this shows that he did actually intend the promise to form the basis for any legal relations, and so the offer does exist.

  1. Void and voidable Contracts.

    He has knowledge of current projects and has more than routine contact with clients. He has handed in his notice and unknown to him before now; he is now informed that he cannot work for any other firm of architects operating in Europe or the USA for the next ten years, as is in the terms of his contract.

  2. LAW OF CONTRACT. LAW 103. THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT.

    What did each party know? Both knew that the jetty could only be used by the ship lying on the ground. The business of the jetty could not be carried on unless the ground was supposed to be safe. The master of the ship cold know nothing whereas the defendant might, by exercising reasonable care, know everything.

  1. Undue influence in the case of Barclays Bank v. O''Brian [1994] Lord Browne-Wilkinson was ...

    Ann asking her to seek legal advice, the decision in Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v. Burch [1997] . Even if there is no undue influence, certainly there will be misrepresentation by Derek and still he will be guilty as the same rules apply to misrepresentation.

  2. Aspects of Contract and Business Law Case Studies

    In the example above Amersham & Wycombe limited would be looking to enforce the contract because they completed their side of the contract. Capacity in a contract is the ability for both the parties to be able to perform their duties within the contract.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work