Contracts Rights of Third Parties Act 1999

Contracts: privity and third parties

Contracts: privity and thirdpartiesAn outline of the ways in which contractual rights can be conferred and contractual obligationsimposed on third parties.

Reference: www.practicallaw.com/8-380-8057

The common law doctrine of privity of contract (also known as the third party rule) states thatonly the parties to a contract acquire directly enforceable rights under it. That is, only a party toa contract can sue or be sued on the contract. The origin of the doctrine derives from Tweddlev Atkinson [1861] 121 EC 762, and was applied by the House of Lords in Dunlop v PneumaticTyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847 (HL).

While it is generally considered right that a contract cannot, in general, impose obligations on anyperson except the parties to it, the doctrine has been regarded as unfairly preventing third partiesfrom enforcing contracts made for their benefit. Courts have sometimes contrived ingeniousremedies to assist third parties and avoid injustice done to them.

There are a number of exceptions to the third party rule, of which the most important is thatcreated by the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (1999 Act). This note considers theexception created by the 1999 Act and the other important statutory, equitable and common lawexceptions to the rule.

The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999In 1996, the Law Commission reviewed the doctrine of privity of contract, recognising the needfor reform to enable third parties to enforce contracts. Following its recommendations, the 1999Act was enacted to provide a statutory exception to the doctrine of privity of contract. It appliesautomatically to contracts made on or after 11 May 2000.

The 1999 Act has significantly changed the doctrine of privity by providing for contracts to conferbenefits on third parties in certain circumstances. However, it has not changed the common lawposition on imposing obligations on third parties.

Despite introduction of the 1999 Act, there remain a number of other statutory exceptions tothe doctrine of privity. There also exist other ways in which a person who was not party to theoriginal contract may acquire rights and obligations which mirror those of the original partiesor are linked in some way to the terms of the original contract (see Other methods of conferringcontractual benefits on third parties and Methods of imposing contractual obligations on thirdparties below; and see Practice note, Contracts: transferring rights and obligations).

The third party right

Under the 1999 Act, a third party may enforce a term of a contract where:

• The right to enforce is given to the third party by an express term in the contract (section1(1)(a), 1999 Act).

www.practicallaw.com/8-380-8057 1


• The term the third party seeks to enforce purports to confer a benefit on the third party,unless on a proper construction of the contract, the parties did not intend the term beenforceable by a third party (section 1(1)(b) and (2), 1999 Act).

The first limb (section 1(1)(a)) is straightforward, as it requires an express term in the contractwhich gives a third party the right to enforce.

The second limb (section 1(1)(b) and (2)) is less straightforward, as it turns on the constructionof the contract. Note that the term in question must itself purport to confer a benefit on the thirdparty; performance of a term which then benefits a third party would not give rise to a third partyright.

What is the situation when a contract is neutral (silent) as to the parties’ intentions? In NisshinShipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 2602 (Comm), a contract term provided forthe payment of commission by one party to a third party. The contract was silent, however, as towhether the parties intended that the third party could enforce the term.

The court held that the term was enforceable by the third party, on the basis that where, as inthis case, the contract was neutral (that is, silent) as to the contracting parties’ intention, section1(2) of the 1999 Act would not apply. Section 1(2) creates a rebuttable presumption that wherethe parties include a term which purports to benefit an expressly identified third party, then theparties do intend to grant the third party the right to enforce the term. This presumption canbe rebutted if evidence proves that the parties did not intend to grant the third party a right toenforce the term.

The approach in Nisshin was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Laemthong InternationalLines Co Ltd v Artis (The Laemthong Glory) (No 2) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 688. In this case, therewas nothing in the letter of indemnity in question to indicate that its parties did not intend therelevant terms to be enforced by a third party. It was held therefore that a third party couldenforce the terms.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Ayres and Ors [2007] EWCACiv 52 shows that clear drafting is required for any rights to arise by virtue of section 1(1)(b)of the 1999 Act. In that case, tenants unsuccessfully argued that they were entitled to rely on alimitation of liability provision in a deed by virtue of section 1(1)(b) of the 1999 Act. Moore-BickLJ commented that it was not plausible that the landlords were content to rely on the "uncertaineffect" of the 1999 Act in order to confer a benefit on the tenants (see PLC Property, Legal update,Third party’s reliance on restriction on enforcement (Court of Appeal)).

Identifying the third party

For a third party right to be created, the relevant third party must be expressly identified in thecontract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description (section 1(3),1999 Act). The third party need not actually be in existence when the contract is entered into. Inthis way, contracting parties can confer benefits on, for example, an unborn child or a companythat has not yet been incorporated.

In Avraamides and Anor v Colwill and Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1533, the Court of Appeal heldthat the claimants could not enforce an agreement under the 1999 Act, as they had not beenexpressly identified as beneficiaries of the relevant contract. The 1999 Act required expressidentification, and this requirement precluded the court from attempting to identify the third



party by implication or contractual construction (see Legal update, Contract: rights of thirdparties). This case emphasises the 1999 Act’s requirement for an "express" (and not implied)identification of the third parties entitled to enforce the contractual terms. It is the first casewhich has turned on the requirements of section 1(3) of the 1999 Act, and highlights theimportance, when drafting agreements, of expressly identifying any third party who is intendedto have the statutory right to enforce the terms of the contract.

Remedies for breach of contract

In exercising the right to enforce a contractual term, the third party is entitled to the same rightsto obtain damages, an injunction or an order for specific performance as he would have had ifhe had been a party to the contract (section 1(5), 1999 Act). The normal rules of law applicableto those remedies, including the rules relating to causation, remoteness and the duty to mitigateloss, apply to the third party’s claim.

Subject to express terms

The third party’s right to enforce a contractual term is subject to the contract’s terms andconditions (section 1(4), 1999 Act). This means that it is open to the parties when drafting thecontract to exclude, limit or place conditions on the third party’s right to enforce a contractualterm (see Standard clause, Third party rights (exclusion) and its accompanying drafting note).This might be important to contracting parties where, for example, there is a class of thirdparties and, although accepting that there should be a third party right, the contracting partieswish to avoid a multiplicity of claims or to regulate the conduct of any claims.

Similarly, the parties may need to consider modifying the operation of the 1999 Act in respect of:

• The jurisdiction in which third parties can bring claims to enforce their rights under thecontract (see Governing law and jurisdiction: drafting note: Third party claims).

• The arbitration provisions in the contract (see Arbitration above and Internationalarbitration: drafting note).

• How the contract’s confidentiality provisions work in relation to third party rights (seeConfidentiality: drafting note).

Exclusion and limitation clauses

A third party is entitled to take advantage of an exclusion or limitation clause (section 1(6),1999 Act). For example, a contract term might exclude or limit a party’s liability for the tortof negligence and expressly provide that such exclusion or limitation is for the benefit of theparty’s agents, servants or subcontractors. If any such agents, servants or subcontractors werenegligent, they would be able to take the benefit of the exclusion clause.

However:

• If a third party intends to rely on section 1(6) and a clause limiting liability (such as theexample cited above), that third party must consider the remainder of the 1999 Act and,in particular, section 3(6). Section 3(6) makes it clear that a third party can only rely onsection 1 of the 1999 Act, in particular to limit liability, if they could have relied on thatlimit had they been a party to the contract. The third party will not, therefore, be able torely on the exclusion or limitation clause (as in the example cited above) if the clause is heldto be unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA).



• If a third party intends to rely on a clause such as the example cited above, it must also checkwhether the contract excludes the effect of the 1999 Act (see Excluding the effect of the 1999Act). If the effect of the 1999 Act has been excluded, unless there is an express carve-outfrom the general exclusion that allows the identified third parties (in this example, agents,servants and subcontractors) to rely on the benefit of the limitation clause, the third partycannot rely on the limitation clause.

Note that a third party’s ability to use UCTA to attack a contractual exclusion or limitationclause which the promisor is relying on as a defence to the third party’s claim, or one whichcompletely excludes the third party’s rights under the 1999 Act, is limited. For detailed analysisof the relationship between UCTA and the 1999 Act, see Article, Third parties’ contractual rights:Radical changes to basic principles: Unfair Contract Terms, PLC Magazine, 1999.

Variation and rescission

In order for a third party to rely on rights under a contract to enforce one of its terms, the partiesto the contract should not be allowed to change it so as to remove that right without the thirdparty’s consent. The 1999 Act therefore limits, in certain circumstances, the parties’ right torescind or vary the contract.

When is a third party’s consent to variation or rescission required?

Where a third party has a right to enforce a contractual term, the parties cannot rescind thecontract by agreement, or vary it in such a way as to extinguish or alter the third party’sentitlement under that right without his consent, if his right has "crystallised" (section 2(1),1999 Act). Crystallisation means that either:

• The third party has communicated his assent to the term to the contracting party whogranted the right (the promisor). This assent may be by words or conduct. If it is sent bypost or other means, it must be received by the promisor to be effective.

• The promisor is aware that the third party has relied on the term.

• The promisor can reasonably be expected to have foreseen that the third party would relyon the term and he has, in fact, relied on it.

The third party does not need to have suffered any loss to rely on the term.

What if consent cannot be obtained?

Where the third party’s consent is required, the contacting parties may apply to the court todispense with his consent if either:

• It cannot be obtained because the third party’s whereabouts cannot reasonably beascertained.

• He is mentally incapable of giving his consent.

• Where consent is required under section 2(1)(c) of the 1999 Act, the court is satisfied thatit cannot reasonably be ascertained whether or not the third party has in fact relied on theterm (sections 2(4) and 2(5), 1999 Act).

Excluding the consent requirement



The requirement for third party consent in the 1999 Act is an area of great danger for theimprudent draftsperson, because it potentially subjects contracting parties to the will of thirdparties before the contracting parties can amend, or terminate, the contractual arrangementswhich they have agreed.

For this reason, the contract may expressly provide that no consent is required from third partiesto the variation or rescission of the contract (section 2(3), 1999 Act) (see Standard clause, Thirdparty rights: clause 1.2).

For further information on variation of contracts, see Practice note, Contracts: variation.

Assignment of the third party right

Can a third party assign his right to enforce a term of a contract? The 1999 Act is silent on thispoint. However, the Law Commission, in its 1996 report, commented that a third party shouldbe able to assign its rights under the 1999 Act in the same way as a party to a contract can assignits rights in common law.

The Law Commission did not however think that an express legislative provision to this effectwas necessary. In principle, therefore, it would seem possible for a third party to assign his rightsto another person.

Defences, set-off and counterclaims

The 1999 Act provisions on defences, set-off and counterclaims should be borne in mind whendrafting the contract.

The general principle is that where a third party seeks to enforce a right under a contract against acontracting party, the contracting party is entitled to rely on any defence or set-off arising from,or in connection with, the contract (relevant to the term on which the third party relies) thatwould have been available to that contracting party had the claim been brought by the otherparty to the contract (section 3(2), 1999 Act).

This general principle can be extended by an express term in the contract, so that a contractingparty can also rely by way of defence or set-off against a third party on any matter if an expressterm of the contract provides for it and it would have been available to him if the proceedings hadbeen brought by the other party (such as those defences and set-offs arising from matters outsidethe contract) (section 3(3), 1999 Act).

It can also be limited or excluded by an express term in the contract (section 3(5), 1999 Act).

In addition to the general principle stated above, where a third party seeks to enforce a right undera contract against a contracting party, the contracting party is entitled to rely on any defence orset-off or raise any counterclaim (even if it does not arise from the contract itself) which wouldhave been available to that contracting party had the third party been a party to the contract(section 3(4), 1999 Act).

This rule can be limited or excluded by an express term in the contract (section 3(5), 1999 Act).

Protection from double liability

The third party’s right to enforce a particular term of the contract under the 1999 Act does notaffect the promisee’s right to enforce that term (section 4, 1999 Act). In some circumstances



therefore the promisor could be sued by both promisee and the third party for the same breachof contract. Although the general rule is that a promisee can only sue for its own loss, the courtshave gradually extended the circumstances where the promisee is able to sue for losses sufferedby the third party. The 1999 Act therefore provides that if the promisee has recovered a sum inrespect of the third party’s loss, the court or arbitral tribunal can reduce the award to the thirdparty as it thinks appropriate to take account of that sum (section 5, 1999 Act).

Arbitration

In certain situations, the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 apply in relation to third partyrights under the 1999 Act (section 8, 1999 Act). Without section 8, the main provisions of theArbitration Act 1996 would not apply because a third party is not a party to the arbitrationagreement between the promisor and the promisee.

The 1999 Act distinguishes the following two situations:

• The most common, is when the third party has a right under the 1999 Act to enforce acontractual term, and that right is subject to another contractual term providing for thesubmission of disputes to arbitration (provided that agreement is in writing for the purposesof the Arbitration Act 1996). In this case, the third party will be treated as if he were aparty to that arbitration agreement where there is a dispute between the third party and thepromisor in relation to the contractual term (section 8(1), 1999 Act).

• Where a third party has a right under the 1999 Act to enforce a contractual term providingfor the arbitration of disputes between the third party and the promisor (for example,tort claims) but which does not relate to other substantive terms of the contract that areenforceable by the third party. In this case, if the arbitration agreement is in writing for thepurposes of the Arbitration Act 1996, the third party can choose to enforce the arbitrationagreement and the Arbitration Act 1996 will apply. However, the third party cannot, inthese circumstances, be compelled to arbitrate such disputes and it will remain free tochoose to litigate the disputes in the normal way (section 8(2), 1999 Act).

In Nisshin (see The third party right), the court considered whether the enforcement of the thirdparty rights was subject to the arbitration provisions. It held that under section 8 of the 1999 Act,the third party was entitled to the benefit of, and was bound by, the arbitration provisions in theagreement and there was no further requirement to show that the contracting parties intendedthat the third party should be able to enforce the arbitration provisions.

Excluding the effect of the 1999 Act

The parties can expressly agree in their contract that a person who is not a party to the contractshall not have any rights under or in connection with it by virtue of the 1999 Act. This operatesto exclude the effect of the 1999 Act.

For clauses excluding the rights of third parties to enforce the terms of a contracts, see Standardclause: Third party rights.

Exceptions

A number of situations are specifically excluded from the application of the 1999 Act, generallyon the basis that they relate to areas already regulated by statute:

• Bills of exchange, promissory notes and other negotiable instruments.



• A contract binding on a company and its members under section 14 of the Companies Act1985 (such as a company’s memorandum and articles of association); after 1 October 2009,this will refer to section 33 of Part 3 of Chapter 4, of the Companies Act 2006.

• Any incorporation document of a limited liability partnership or any limited liabilitypartnership agreement as defined in the Limited Liability Partnerships Regulations 2001(SI 1090/2001).

• Preventing a third party enforcing any term of a contract of employment (but nota termination agreement) against an employee. This does not prevent a third party(for example, a customer of an employer) seeking to enforce a term of the contractof employment against the employer. In addition, employment-related contracts (forexample, the terms of a share option scheme) are not outside the scope of the 1999 Act.For this reason, it is common to see in such documents specific exclusions of the operationof the 1999 Act.

• Contracts for the carriage of goods by sea, rail and road (other than in respect of a thirdparty’s right to take advantage of an exclusion or limitation clause in such a contract).

(Section 6, 1999 Act.)

For further information on the 1999 Act, see:

• Standard document, Third party rights and its accompanying drafting note.

• Checklist, Third party rights.

• Article, Third parties’ contractual rights: Radical changes to basic principles, PLCMagazine, 1999.

• Article, Third party rights: four years on, PLC Magazine, 2004.

Other methods of conferring contractual benefits on third partiesThe 1999 Act does not affect any right or remedy of a third party that exists or is availableapart from the 1999 Act itself (section 7(1), 1999 Act). This means that the existing statutoryand common law exceptions to the doctrine of privity are still valid (including those mentionedbelow) but in practice, where possible, contracting parties are more likely to rely on the morestraightforward application of the 1999 Act instead.

Statutory exceptions

There are a number of legislative exceptions to the doctrine of privity which confer rights on thirdparties, for example, the rules regarding various different types of insurance policies, the law onbills of exchange and bills of lading, section 56(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (third partiestaking an interest in land), section 14 of the Companies Act 1985 (memorandum and articles ofa company bind the company and its members), and the law relating to package holiday tourcontracts.

Creation of a trust

A contracting party may declare that it holds the benefit of a contractual promise on trust forthird party beneficiaries, giving the third parties rights in equity to compel enforcement of thecontract (Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 68).



Case law suggests that the trust of a promise can only be applied to promises to pay money orto transfer property as attempts to apply it to other forms of contractual obligations have failed(Norwich City Council v Harvey [1989] 1 WLR 828).

Collateral contracts

Although not strictly an exception to the doctrine of privity, a contract between two parties maybe deemed to be accompanied by a collateral contract between one of them and a third partyrelating to the same subject-matter, which may, in effect, allow that third party to enforce a termof the main contract. However, the validity of such arrangements are often challenged on thegrounds that no consideration is given for the collateral contract.

An example of a valid collateral contract arose in the case Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel ProductsLtd [1951] 3 All ER 471. In this case, a pier owner sought assurances from a supplier of paintas to the paint’s suitability for use on the pier. Relying on these assurances, the pier ownercontracted with painters to repaint the pier, specifying the use of that particular paint. The paintproved unsuitable and the pier owner wished to sue the paint supplier (who contracted with thepainters, not the pier owner). The issue arose as to whether there was a contract between the paintsupplier and the pier owner. The court held that there was a collateral contract, arising from theassurances as to the paint’s suitability. The consideration for the statement about the paint wasthe owner requiring that the painters procure the specified paint from the paint suppliers.

Collateral warranties and the construction industry

A collateral warranty is a contract under which a professional consultant, building contractoror subcontractor generally warrants to a third party that it has complied with its professionalappointment, building contract or subcontract. It is a common feature in construction contracts,which operates to bypass the doctrine of privity of contract and allow funders, buyers or tenantsthe benefit of some "construction security". For more information, see Practice note, Collateralwarranties on contruction projects.

Third party reliance on exclusion clauses

The courts have allowed a number of devices under which third parties have been able to rely onclauses limiting or excluding their liability for negligence. These include:

• The use of "Himalaya" clauses. These clauses extend the defences of a contracting partyto a third party employed by that contracting party, where the third party is deemed tohave accepted a unilateral offer made by the other contracting party on terms includingthe exclusion clause) (New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd (TheEurymedon) [1975] AC 154). These clauses are designed to prevent one contracting partyfrom bypassing the limitations of liability available to the other contracting party by insteadsuing the third party employed by the other contracting party.

• Construction of an exclusion clause as limiting the scope of a duty of care which wouldotherwise have existed in tort (Southern Water Authority v Carey [1985] 2 All ER 1077 andNorwich City Council v Harvey [1989] 1 WLR 828).

Tort of negligence

The tort of negligence can be viewed as an exception to the third party rule. A contracting partycan, in certain circumstances, incur liability in tort as a result of breaching a contract to whichthe claimant is not a party. The remedy in tort in effect serves to enforce a contract benefiting athird party at the suit of the third party. For example, solicitors were held to be negligent (based



on an extension of the principle of assumption of responsibility in Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd vHeller and Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465) and liable to a prospective beneficiary for the loss of theintended legacy, when they failed to draw up a will before the testator died (White v Jones [1995]2 AC 207).

For further details on the tort of negligence, see Practice notes, Professional negligence andNegligent misstatement.

Deed poll

A deed executed by one person alone (deed poll) can be enforced by a third party in whose favourit is executed (Chelsea and Waltham Green Building Soc v Armstrong [1951] Ch 853). This is incontrast to a deed executed between two or more parties (inter parties deed) which is customarilyused to confer rights only between those parties and is not typically enforceable by third parties(Gardner v Lachlan (1836) 8 Sim 123), unless for example, the third party has enforceable rightsby virtue of the 1999 Act.

A person can therefore unilaterally undertake an obligation to another person or class of personsby executing a deed poll in their favour. The beneficiaries do not have to be a party to thedocument (or provide consideration in order to be able to enforce the deed poll) and the promisorcannot vary the deed poll, after it has been executed and delivered, without the beneficiaries’consent.

In practice, deed polls are used for guarantees of indebtedness under loan stocks and similardebt instruments where they are executed solely by the guarantor - the investors, in whose favourthe guarantees are given, are not signatories to the deed polls (see Legal update, Third partyenforcement of deeds).

Agency

The general principle of agency is that where a principal expressly or impliedly authorises hisagent to enter into a contract on his behalf, the contract is treated as if it was made between theprincipal and the other party (customer). The principal can sue (and be sued) on the contract.Although agency appears to be an exception to the doctrine of privity of contract, and one whichallows the principal to enforce the benefit of a contract, the agent and principal are treated as ifthey are one person. The principal does not acquire rights under the contract as a third party;he acquires rights (and liabilities) under it as a party to it.

One form of agency, however, operates in a manner more akin to an exception to the doctrine ofprivity, and that is the case of an undisclosed principal. If the agent contracts with the customeron behalf of his principal (where he is acting within his authority) but he does not make it clearto the customer that he is acting for a principal, the principal is still permitted to enforce thecontract against the customer who was unaware of his identity, despite the fact that the customerdid not intend to contract with the principal (unless the customer can show that the terms of thecontract are incompatible with agency).

For further information on undisclosed principals, see Legal update, Commercial: Undisclosedprincipal.

For further information on agency, see Practice note, Agency: overview.

Assignment



A party may assign his rights under a contract to a third party, subject to any express provisionsto the contrary in the contract, or unless the contract is a personal contract. If the assignmenttakes effect as a legal assignment, the third party will be able to enforce the contract in his ownright. If the assignment takes effect as an equitable assignment, the third party may still enforcethe contract against the other party to the contract, but must join the assignor to the action.

For further details on assignment, see Practice note, Contracts: assignment.

Novation

Novation is a means of ensuring that a contracting party’s rights are given to a third party,although, strictly speaking, the original rights are not transferred to the third party: the novationextinguishes the original contract and replaces it with another contract in which the third partytakes up the rights and obligations which duplicate those of one of the original parties to theagreement.

For further details on novation, see Practice note, Contracts: novation.

Methods of imposing contractual obligations on third partiesIn general, the third party rule prevents contracting parties from imposing obligations on athird party. The 1999 Act does not help here: it gives a third party rights to enforce a termof a contract but it does not enable the contracting parties to impose obligations (or burdens)on the third party (see The third party right). The law on assignment is also of no assistancehere as it only allows a contracting party to assign the benefit of the contract to a third party;contractual obligations cannot be assigned (see Practice note, Contracts: assignment). However,the following mechanisms are ways in which the obligations of a contract may be imposed on athird party.

Covenants concerning land

Certain covenants may run with the land so as to impose burdens on parties other than theoriginal contracting parties. The relevant covenant may relate to freehold land or leasehold land(see PLC Property, Practice note, Restrictive covenants).

Subcontracts

A contracting party can arrange for a third party to perform his obligations through a subcontractwith the third party (provided the contract allows him to do so and the obligations are notpersonal). Strictly speaking, the subcontracting party’s obligations under the main contract arenot imposed on the third party: the third party accepts obligations under the subcontract thatmirror the subcontracting party’s obligations under the main contract.

For further information on subcontracting, see Practice note, Contracts: subcontracts.

Agency

An agent may contract on behalf of his principal and so impose contractual obligations (as wellas benefits) on the principal (see above):

• If an agent enters a contract with another party (customer) and that contract is within thescope of his actual authority (express or implied), the principal is bound by the contract.

• If the agent acts outside his actual authority but within the scope of his apparent authority,the principal is once again bound by the contract.



• If he acts outside his actual and apparent authority in making the contract on the principal’sbehalf, the principal is not bound by the contract unless he chooses to ratify it.

For further information on agency, see Practice note, Agency: overview.

Novation

The burden of a contract may be imposed on a third party by novation (see above).



Article InformationRESOURCE INFORMATION

The fulltext is available at http://www.practicallaw.com/8-380-8057

General

· Article ID: 8-380-8057

· Document Generated: 17-Sep-2009 16:53:56

Jurisdiction

· England · http://www.practicallaw.com/topic9-103-0624

· Wales · http://www.practicallaw.com/topic4-103-1070

· United Kingdom · http://www.practicallaw.com/topic1-103-0717

Subject

· General contract and boilerplate · http://www.practicallaw.com/topic9-103-1119

· Substantive law · http://www.practicallaw.com/topic6-204-9134

· Contracts and deeds: land and buildings · http://www.practicallaw.com/topic4-103-1310

· Miscellaneous: finance · http://www.practicallaw.com/topic3-103-1103

References

· Collateral warranties on construction projects (http://www.practicallaw.com/0-371-6962)

· Third party's reliance on restriction on enforcement (Court of Appeal)(http://www.practicallaw.com/0-380-6689?item=0-380-6689)

· Commercial: Undisclosed principal (http://www.practicallaw.com/1-100-4073)

· Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd. v Cleaves & Company Ltd. & Ors [2003] EWHC 2602 (Comm)(http://www.practicallaw.com/1-106-7433)

· Collateral warranty or collateral contract (http://www.practicallaw.com/1-107-5937)

· Agency (http://www.practicallaw.com/1-107-6376)

· Third party enforcement of deeds (http://www.practicallaw.com/1-202-1477)

· Third party rights: drafting note (http://www.practicallaw.com/2-107-3848)

· Equitable assignment (http://www.practicallaw.com/2-107-6540)

· Negligent misstatement (http://www.practicallaw.com/2-379-9503)

· Restrictive covenants (http://www.practicallaw.com/3-107-4475)



· Professional negligence (http://www.practicallaw.com/3-107-4970)

· Contract: rights of third parties (http://www.practicallaw.com/3-206-2042)

· Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (http://www.practicallaw.com/4-106-4541)

· Governing law and jurisdiction: drafting note: Third party claims(http://www.practicallaw.com/4-107-3852)

· International arbitration: drafting note (http://www.practicallaw.com/5-107-3856)

· Contracts: novation (http://www.practicallaw.com/5-381-7510)

· Third party rights (http://www.practicallaw.com/6-101-3541)

· Third party rights: four years on (http://www.practicallaw.com/6-102-8868)

· Third party rights (http://www.practicallaw.com/6-107-3846)

· Contracts: transferring rights and obligations (http://www.practicallaw.com/6-381-2574)

· Contracts: variation (http://www.practicallaw.com/7-380-8331)

· Contracts: assignment (http://www.practicallaw.com/7-381-7509)

· locator (http://www.practicallaw.com/7-382-2761)

· Agency: overview (http://www.practicallaw.com/8-107-3647)

· Confidentiality: drafting note (http://www.practicallaw.com/8-107-3831)

· Legal assignment (http://www.practicallaw.com/9-107-6754)

© Legal & Commercial Publishing Limited, Practical Law Company 1990 - 2009.http://www.practicallaw.com.Subscription enquiries +44 (0)20 7202 1210 or email [email protected] read our Terms of Use (http://www.practicallaw.com/9-103-0884),Trade Marks (http://www.practicallaw.com/9-265-9958) and Privacy policy(http://www.practicallaw.com/jsp/privacy.jsp)


Contracts Rights of Third Parties Act 1999

Documents

Transcript of Contracts Rights of Third Parties Act 1999