Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 [removed] one of the most universally disliked and criticised blots on the legal landscape". [2]
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate; Pages for logged out editors learn more
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".
Jus tertii (English: rights of a third party/ stranger) is a term for the legal argument by which a person can defend a claim made against them by invoking the rights of a stranger to the dispute. The defence asserts that the rights of the stranger are superior to those of the claimant; in other words the defence is that the claimant has ...
Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of Privity.The case would now be partly resolved by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 section 1(1)(b), allowing a third party to claim independently.
Supplementary provisions relating to third party "and excludes the section of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 that covers negligence from applying in actions against a third party." - Should this be "applying to actions" rather than "applying in actions"? Indeed; my apologies; fixed. Ironholds 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] EWHC J57 (QB), (1861) 1 B&S 393 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 ...
The arbitral tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction to decide the dispute because, first, under s. 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (“CRTPA”), Cleaves have a right to enforce the provisions in the charterparties under which Nisshin agreed to pay Cleaves commission (the “substantive term”); and, second, under s. 8 ...