Privity Evaluation

• P: upholding privity protects freedom of contract

  KT: privacy, freedom to add third party rights

  • Tweddle v Atkinson, Contracts (RTP) Act 1999

  CA: uncertainty but fair

  • Jackson v HH, Nissin Shipping

  C: freedom of contract less important than justice
• P: many exceptions to avoid injustice

  KT: flexibility

  • Agents, Jackson v HH, Shanklin Pier

  CA: uncertainty

  • more common law

  C: uncertain but fair
• P: common law rules are very narrow

  KT: covenants specific to land, collateral contracts

  • Tulk v Moxhay, Shanklin Pier

  CA: Act is much broader

  • Contracts (RTP) Act 1999

  C: certain but more third party power
• P: provides certainty to contracts

  KT: must provide consideration to sue

  • Tweddle v Atkinson

  CA: foundational principle would be decided differently today

  • Tweddle v Atkinson, s1(1)(b)

  C: certainty in common law which isn’t needed
• P: chains of litigation are not a practical worry

  KT: cases resolves using the general rule or statute

  • Tweddle v Atkinson, Contracts (RTP) Act 1999

  CA: could clog up legal system

  • Jackson v HH

  C: not usually a concern but uncertain
• P: could deny freedom of contract

  KT: unfairness, confusing for lay people

  • Tweddle v Atkinson

  CA: issue has been fixed by statute

  • s1(1)(a)

  C: unfairness in the past but now fair