A Person Who Is Not a Party to a Contract

The retailer then sells the product to a consumer. There is no private contract between the manufacturer and the consumer. The law allows for full respect for the objective of the parties. In Beswick v. Beswick, it was agreed that Peter Beswick would transfer his business to his nephew in exchange for the nephew employing him for the rest of his life and then pay a weekly pension to Mrs. Beswick. Since the latter clause was in favour of a person not party to the contract, the nephew did not believe that it was enforceable and therefore did not fulfil it and made only the payment of the agreed weekly amount. But the only reason Mr Beswick signed a contract with his nephew was in favour of Mrs Beswick. By law, Ms Beswick would be able to perform the contract herself. Therefore, the law recognizes the intentions of the parties. „As a general rule, a party may not rely on the provisions of a contract of which it is not the original party. However, there are limited exceptions to this rule that include the following theories: (1) hypothesis; (2) piercing the corporate veil or alter ego; (3) the establishment by reference; (4) the theories of third party beneficiaries; or (5) Waiver [or] Estoppel. Arthur Andersen LLP v.

Carlisle, 129 S.Ct. 1896, 1902, 173 L.Ed.2d 832 (2009). n. a person who is not a party to a contract or transaction, but who has an interest (p.B. a buyer of one of the parties, was present at the signing of the agreement or made an offer that was rejected). As a general rule, the third party has no legal rights in this regard, unless the contract was concluded in favour of the third party. The term „confidentiality of the contract“ is a doctrine alien to a contract. This means that a person who is not a party cannot sue for the execution of the promise made by the parties. That is, a person who is not a party to the contract cannot perform a contract. Sometimes one of the parties to a contract acknowledges payment to a third party or otherwise presents itself as the third party`s representative. In such cases, the party enters into a binding obligation towards the third party who can perform it. And if that party acknowledges the payment to the third party or constitutes itself as the representative of that third party, the third party may claim the amount from such a party. Prior to 1861, there were decisions in English law that allowed the provisions of a contract to be enforced by persons who were not involved in it, usually relatives of a promisor, and decisions that did not allow the rights of third parties.

[1] [2] The doctrine of privacy arose in parallel with the doctrine of consideration, whose rules state that consideration must deviate from the promise, that is, if nothing is given for the promise to give something in return, that promise is legally binding only if it is promised as an act. In 1833, there was Price v. Easton, where a contract for the execution of works was concluded against payment to a third party. When the third tried to demand payment, he was considered not to be aware of the contract, and his request therefore failed. This was fully related to the doctrine of consideration and, as such, established with the more famous case of Tweddle v. Atkinson. In this case, the plaintiff could not sue the executor of his father-in-law`s will, who had promised the plaintiff`s father payment for the plaintiff because he had not provided anything in exchange for the contract. A third-party action is another name for Impleader`s procedural tool used in a civil action by a defendant who wishes to bring a third party into a dispute because that party is ultimately liable for all or part of the damage that may be awarded to the plaintiff.

This problem occurred several times until MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916), a case analogous to Winterbottom v. Wright with the defective wheel of a car. Judge Cardozo, writing for the New York Court of Appeals, ruled that no privacy is required if the manufacturer knows the product is likely to be dangerous if it is defective, if third parties.B (i.e., consumers) will be harmed as a result of this defect, and there were no further tests after the initial sale. Predictable injuries occurred from predictable uses. Cardozo`s innovation was to decide that the basis of the action was that it was a crime and not a breach of contract. In this way, he refined the problems caused by the doctrine of privacy in a modern industrial society.

Although his view is only law in new York State, the solution he proposed has been widely accepted elsewhere and has formed the basis of the doctrine of product liability. Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia have adopted all legal provisions that allow third party beneficiaries to perform contracts and have restricted the parties` ability to amend the contract after the third party has relied on it. In addition, section 48 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) allows third party beneficiaries to enforce insurance contracts. A client may, even if concealed, continue a contract entered into by an agent. The third party cannot rely on the fact that there was no contract between him and the customer. Contractual deprivation has also played a key role in the development of negligence. In the first case, Winterbottom v. Wright (1842), in which Winterbottom, a mail truck driver, was injured by a defective wheel, attempted to sue the manufacturer Wright for his injuries. However, the courts have held that there is no confidentiality of the contract between the manufacturer and the consumer […].

Veröffentlicht am