Privity Eval Points

• What is the principle of privity in contract law?

  Only parties to a contract can claim on the contract.
• What does the principle of privity imply for third parties?

  Third parties have no rights to claim on the contract.
• In the case of Beswick v Beswick, who was meant to benefit from the contract?

  The wife of the nephew was meant to benefit from the contract.
• What was a negative point about the principle of privity as illustrated in Beswick v Beswick?

  The wife could not claim payments despite being intended to benefit from the contract.
• What was the purpose of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999?

  To give rights to third parties in contracts.
• Under what condition can third parties claim under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999?

  When they are expressly stated in the contract.
• How might the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 have changed the outcome of Tweddle v Atkinson?

  It could have allowed the son-in-law to claim the money promised in the contract.
• Why has the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 been labeled as ineffective?

  It can be excluded if the parties want it to be.
• What is one exception to the principle of privity?

  Collateral contracts.
• What was the case of Shanklin Pier v Detel about?

  It involved an indirect contract where the paint did not last as promised.
• What is a potential downside of collateral contracts as an exception to privity?

  They can be hard to understand and may confuse judges.
• What is another exception to privity mentioned in the study material?

  Group bookings.
• What was the case of Jackson v Horizon Holidays about?

  It involved a group wanting to claim for a holiday they did not enjoy.
• How do restrictive covenants relate to the principle of privity?

  They are exceptions that allow third parties to claim under certain conditions.
• What does the case of Shadwell v Shadwell illustrate about indirect promises?

  It shows that B is bound by A's promise to C.
• What is one proposal for reform regarding the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999?

  To make it impossible to exclude the Act from contracts.
• What is a potential alternative to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999?

  Creating a new Act to address the changes since 1999.
• What is the principle of privity in contract law?

  Only parties to a contract can claim on the contract.
• What does the principle of privity imply for third parties?

  Third parties have no rights to claim on the contract.
• In the case of Beswick v Beswick, who was intended to benefit from the contract?

  The wife of the nephew was intended to benefit from the contract.
• What was a negative point about the principle of privity as illustrated in Beswick v Beswick?

  The wife could not claim benefits from the contract despite being intended to benefit.
• What Act was imposed to give rights to third parties in contracts?

  The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
• What does the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 allow third parties to do?

  It allows third parties to claim if they are expressly stated in the contract.
• How might the outcome of Tweddle v Atkinson have changed due to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999?

  The son-in-law could have claimed the money if he was expressly mentioned in the contract.
• Why has the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act been labeled as ineffective?

  It can be excluded if the parties want it to be.
• What is one consequence of most commercial contracts excluding third party rights?

  Third parties cannot sue under those contracts.
• What is one exception to the principle of privity?

  Collateral contracts.
• What is a collateral contract?

  An implied secondary contract between parties indirectly involved in the main contract.
• In the case of Shanklin Pier v Detel, what was the issue with the paint used?

  The paint lasted only two days instead of the promised two years.
• What is a potential downside of collateral contracts as mentioned in the study material?

  They may be hard to understand and could confuse judges.
• What is another exception to the principle of privity mentioned in the study material?

  Group bookings.
• In the case of Jackson v Horizon Holidays, what was the issue faced by the group?

  The group did not enjoy their holiday and wanted to claim compensation.
• What does the case Tulk v Moxhay illustrate about privity exceptions?

  It illustrates the flexibility in the law regarding restrictive covenants.
• What is a benefit of allowing claims where the promise was made indirectly, as seen in Shadwell v Shadwell?

  B is bound by the promise, ensuring C is not left empty-handed.
• What is a potential issue with promises made as good gestures, according to the study material?

  They should not be legally enforceable if they are merely gestures.
• What are the main points regarding the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999?

  • Allows third parties to claim if expressly stated in the contract.
  • Has been labeled ineffective due to exclusion clauses.
  • Most commercial contracts exclude third party rights.
• What are the exceptions to the principle of privity mentioned in the study material?

  • Collateral contracts
  • Group bookings
  • Restrictive covenants
  • Indirect promises
• What are the pros and cons of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999?

  Pros:

  • Third parties can claim benefits from contracts.

  
  

  Cons:

  • Can be excluded by parties.
  • Many commercial contracts exclude third party rights.
• What are the implications of collateral contracts in law?

  • Implied secondary contracts can hold parties liable.
  • May create confusion and inconsistency in legal application.
• What are the potential reforms suggested for the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999?

  • Make it impossible to exclude the Act from contracts.
  • Consider abolishing the Act and creating a new one.