Talk:Privity of contract
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
analyse the extent to which landlord and tenant (covenants) act 1995 has overcome the problemsof privity of contract.
Richardcavell 01:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC) - Can someone please explain the difference between US and English law on this?
"In Australia, it has been held that third-party beneficiaries may uphold a promise made for its benefit in a contract to which it is not a party (Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v. McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107)." This is patently wrong. In Australia, third party beneficiaries may only 'get around' privity by getting the promisee to enforce the contract, establishing an agency relationship, inferring a trust, or through estoppel. While the justices in Trident do discuss some of these options, there is no clear majority within the decision, so this statement remains wrong.
"Privity is the legal term for a close, mutual, or successive relationship to the same right of property or the power to enforce a promise or warranty" That's a terrible definition. Surely there must be some judicial quote somewhere that explains it better? Else, the root of the word 'privy'.
Privity of contract
[edit]Privity of contract 14.139.58.50 (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)