Privity of Contract Reform

Privity of buzz off ReformIt is important to accentuate that, while our proposed reforms will give some tertiary parties the good to levy bundles, there will remain m each requires where a trine companionship stands to benefit and yet will not comport a business of compelabilityIn 1996, the truth c atomic number 18 published Privity of Contract Contract for the turn a profit of Third Parties. The proposals set out in this report were later legislated on the basis of, in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The aim of this regulation was fundamentally to alter the law in relation to the concept of privity of distill, in localize to grant 3rd parties who were not parties to the original strike certain estimables. The dogma of privity of contract will be considered, and the effect on this of the C(RTP)A will be analysed. Finally, some consideration will be given to the forefront of whether the legislation has gone far teeming in reforming the law of privity.It has historically been a fundamental and central principle of contract law in England and Wales that except the actual parties to a contract nooky have either contractual rights or duties conferred upon them. This was established at common law in the eluding of Tweddle v Atkinson (1861). The doctrine was confirmed in the early ordinal coke in the drive of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd (1915). It is important at the outset to distinguish the doctrine of privity of contract from the hazard of a third caller enforcing a collateral contract. These are instead distinct scenarios. Under the firstly (historically), the third party had no right to claim rights, nor to be held liable for the performance of contractual duties. In the assist scenario, as was established at common law in the case of Shanklin bob v Detel Products Ltd (1951), an actual contract might be put together to exist amid the third party and one of the parties to the contract . It is the former of the twain situations with which the C(RTP)A 1999 is concerned. The two interests (as defined by McKendrick) which a third party move have in a contract to which he is not a party are both whether or not he shtup acquire rights under that contract, and whether or not the contract in question target impose any liabilities or obligations on him.1 The most meaningful impact on this area was that of the C(RTP)A, which Trietel describes as the most substantial domineering development in side contract law in the twentieth century.2What, then, is the purpose of privity of contract? It is, rather obviously, to do with the perceived injustice of awful rights or obligations as between two parties who have had no dealing, at least no contractual dealing. It is clear that if X and Y precede a contractually binding agreement, Y has not made any agreement with Z, and therefore there is no rationale for entitling Z to withstand enforcement action against Y. The justif ication for the doctrine flows from the fact that contractual obligations, unlike tortious ones, are voluntary.3 As Ibbetson states, the rule that a third party could not enforce rights arising under a contract has been a feature of side of meat law since at least the thirteenth century.4 The distinction between the learnedness of third party rights and obligations in contracts and some other exceptions to privity of contract has already been mentioned. These exceptions tin can be expanded beyond collateral contracts (as seen in Shanklin Pier v Detel Products Ltd (1951)), to include a want of a contractual right, whereby a right may be transferred by way of property, as, for usage, under a trust5 the assignment of contractual rights to a third party (as in, for example, calcium hydroxide Gardens deposit Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd (1994)) in cases of agency, where the component is acting on his leashs behalf, with the full authority of that principle, and concludes a contract (following Wakefield v Duckworth (1915), where the agent was operating within his authority, he drops out of the picture and the contract is between the principal and the other contract party) and cases where a claimant who is a third party suffers loss because of the negligent performance of the contract by a contract party, as in the classic case Donoghue v Stevenson (1932).The doctrine of privity, then, was a foundational principle of English contract law until the advent of the Law Commissions report in 1996. The opening quotation, taken from that report, explicitly seeks to fix the implications of the reforms that would later find their way into the C(RTP)A 1999, and the consideration above of the centrality of the doctrine of privity to contract law generally, shows why these limitations were considered necessary. What is the impact on this doctrine of the C(RTP)A, and does this do enough to reform the law on privity?The C(RTP)A states that subject to the provisi ons of this Act, a individual who is not a party to a contract may in his own right enforce a endpoint of the contract if the contract distillly provides that he may or the term purports to confer a benefit on him. Furthermore, the third party must be conductly place in the contract by name, of a outgrowth of a class or as functioning to a particular comment except need not be in existence when the contract is entered into.6 There are, then, two separate tests for enforceability. The first test is described by Burrows as the simplest, and so it is it is a simple question of fact whether the contract expresses the third party may enforce a term of it.7 An example of this explicit authorisation of the third party to enforce a term of the contract is where the contract states X the third party shall have the right to enforce the following terms of the contract The provision under this section is less(prenominal) restrictive than it might be because of the implications of sect ion 1(3) which complements it, stating that the third party does not need to be named it is sufficient for the third party to be the member of an identified class.The piece test of enforceability under the Act is, again in the words of Burrows, is concerned with the implied conferral of rights on third parties (as opposed to the express conferral discussed above).8 The reasoning behind including this second test for enforceability can be broken down into 3 key areas. The first concerns the issue of implied rights in contracts, brought into the contract by implied terms. It is considered that to limit third party rights is akin to close implied terms. In other words, the parties targets are not always their express intentions. The very(prenominal) can apply to third parties. The second area of justification for implied third party rights revolves around the uselessness of a reform confined to an express conferral of rights, unless the contracting parties included some magic formu la in the agreement so as to fall within the scope of the first test.9 Cases where third parties would be unaffected by the C(RTP)A 1999 if the reform was confined to expressly mentioned third parties include Beswick v Beswick (1968), in which A contracted with B to pay money to C and Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bro (1988), in which liability insurance was taken out to protect third parties to the contract. Finally, the implied conferral of rights on third parties has been justified by the fact that the aforesaid(prenominal) magic formula will only be used in informed, well drafted contracts, which more will not be, particularly in the consumer bowl where good legal advice is not affordable.Do these two tests reflect the spunk of the opening quotation? It can certainly be seen how these two tests of enforceability have altered the doctrine of privity substantially, and in particular the second test of enforceability relating to implied third party rights. The Law C ommissions statement, however, suggests a counterweight, between maintaining privity for many contracts, and allowing third party rights in others. This balance can be seen to be aimed for by the existence of a rebuttable self-reliance of intention inherent in the second test of enforceability. This rebuttable presumption attains a further balance, between a sufficient degree of certainty between contracting parties, and sufficient tractability. This flexibility was required in order for the C(RTP)A 1999 to apply to the potentially huge mark of contracts for which it was intended. The presumption is set up by asking the question when are the parties likely to have intended to confer a right on a third party to confer a term? If the answer is where the term purports to confer a benefit on the expressly identified third party, then the presumption is raised.10 This, of course, can be rebutted by the ordinary contractual interpretation of an indication that the parties did not inte nd this. The balance can be seen to have been aimed for, at least, in the two tests of enforceability in the C(RTP)A 1999.An illustration of how the tests would be applied to decided cases is offered by Trietel, who identifies the case of capital of Mississippi v Horizon Holidays (1975) as falling within the scope of the second test under section 1(1)(b). He observes that if the psyche making the date for a holiday on behalf of a third party supplied the names of the other members of the family when the contract was made, those other members would probably acquire rights under subsection 1(1). but no such rights are likely to be acquired if a person simply rented a holiday cottage without giving any cultivation as to the number or names of the persons with whom he proposed to share the accommodation.11 This, then, can be seen to be a limitation to the effect of the reform legislation. It is suggested by McKendrick that section 1 simply gives the contracting parties an incentive t o make their intention clear, which, again, returns to the issue mentioned above about the need for well-drafted contracts.12The C(RTP)A 1999 is a highly significant piece of reform legislation, which fundamentally alters a central doctrine of English contract law. It can be seen to represent the superiority of the doctrine of license of contract over that of privity of contract. The significance of the Act is that while it maintains the previous exceptions to privity of contract, contracting parties will probably make increasing use of the Act rather than these, as a matter of certainty. The effect of the Act is somewhat limited, however, by the continuing requirement of clarity in the construction of the contract, whereby a presumption of an intention to confer rights on a third party can be rebutted. The effect of this, however, is simply to encourage a clarity of intention on the part of the contracting parties.BIBLIOGRAPHYStatutesContracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999Cas esBeswick v Beswick 1968 AC 58Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd 1915 AC 847Jackson v Horizon Holidays 1975 1 WLR 1468Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd 1994 1 AC 85Shanklin Pier v Detel Products Ltd 1951 2 All ER 471Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bro (1988) 165 CLR 107Tweddle v Atkinson 1861 1873 All ER Rep 369Wakefield v Duckworth 1915 1 KB 218Secondary sourcesBurrows, A. (2000) The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act and its Implications for Commercial Contracts (LMCLQ 540)Ibbetson, D. (1999) A diachronic Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford OUP)Law Commission (1996) Privity of Contract Contract for the clear of Third Parties (Law Comm 242)McKendrick, E. (2003) Contract Law Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford OUP)Smith, S.A. (1997) Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties In Defence of the Third-Party Rule, 7 OJLS 643Trietel, G.H. (1999) The Law of Contract, 10th mutation (London clean Maxwell)Trietel, G.H. (2002) Some Landmarks of Twentieth Century Contract Law (Oxford OUP)Footnotes1 McKendrick, E. (2003) Contract Law Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford OUP), p11402 Trietel, P. (2002) Some Landmarks of Twentieth Century Contract Law (Oxford OUP), p473 See Smith, S.A. (1997) Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties In Defence of the Third-Party Rule, 7 OJLS 643, p6454 Ibbetson, D. (1999) A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford OUP), p2415 Per Viscount Haldane in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Lt v Selfridge and Co Ltd (1915)6 C(RTP)A 1999, ss1(1)(a),1(1)(b) and 1(3)7 Burrows, A. (2000) The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act and its Implications for Commercial Contracts (LMCLQ 540), p5428 Ibid9 Ibid10 Ibid, p54311 Trietel, G.H. (1999) The Law of Contract, 10th Edition (London Sweet Maxwell), p60312 McKendrick (2003), p1212