What is the doctrine of Privity of Contract You are not allowed to sue a person that is not part of the contract. A third party someone outside contract cannot sue to enforce the contract. What is its relationship with the doctrine of consideration? Consideration What types of promises are enforceable Privity of Contract Who can enforce an enforceable promise Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) Case according to the judgement is about consideration. However, the problem arises due to privity. Privity and consideration are very similar. They are both to do with enforceability. However, both have different question Why was the 1999 Act considered necessary? Act allows third parties to enforce contracts under specific circumstances. The doctrine of privity was strict and did not allow enforceability under specific circumstances. The intentions of the parties are the major concern of contract law. By not allowing C to not enforce the contract, is this against the intention of the parties? If so the privity of contract is against parties intentions. Third parties may have relied on promise which resulted in a loss. They would have no remedy under privity. The general rule is if you have suffered a loss then only you can sue for that loss. Without third party rights the person who is a thrid party cannot claim for a loss. 14 exceptions through the 1999 Act. Doctrine of privity was inconsistent with civil and common law systems. Privity ran against the manifest intention of the parties The Act is not so clear as it could be. There are two tests of enforceability, where a third party can sue. It only effects the benefits and not the burdens. Third party can sue for benefits using the express test and the implied test.
Express test - About parties intention of third parties rights. - s1(1)(a): Contract expressly gives third parties the right to sue - s1(3): Contract expressly mention C, through name or reference through a class. - Whether C has expressly been given a right to sue in the contract. Then C has the right to sue Implied test of enforceability - s1(1)(b): where parties purport to confer a benefit on C - s1(2): subject to the construction of the contract (anything we can deduce from the contract, ie to the parties intentions for C not to be able to sue) - s1(3): expressly mention What other common law, equitable and exceptions survive alongside the 1999 Act? How important are these exceptions? Tort of negligence might provide direct rights to A but it is not a contract right. Exceptions continue to exist alongside the Act. They do not say anything about the exceptions so they can continue to grow They could have defined privity and the exceptions. Privity would then be legislatively defined. However, privity is still in common law so it is unclear? You cannot transfer burdens through third parties through covenants of land. Collateral contract, constructive trusts. s.6 problem - Contains lots of contracts that are exempt from Act