Skip to main content

Exception of privity to Contract

 Exceptions of Privity of Contract


By: Robin Pandey Date: 27/02/2022

1. Beneficiaries under trust or charge: Where a trust is created by a contract, a

beneficiary may enforce the rights which the trust so created has given him though not a party to

the contract. Similarly, a beneficiary can enforce a charge though not a party to the deed. In Khwaja

Muhammad Khan v. Hussani Begam (1910), an agreement was executed between a boy's father

and a girl's father that the former would pay to the girl a certain sum of money as Kharch-i-pandan

in perpetuity in consideration of the girl's marriage with the boy. The girl and the boy were both

minors at that time. Certain properties were also charged for the payment of the money. After 19

years owing to differences the lady left her husband's home and filed a suit against her father-in-law

for the recovery of arrears of the annuity. It was held that the lady was entitled to proceed in equity

to enforce her claim. In Rana Uma Nath Baksh Singh v. Jang Bahadur, the appellant was appointed

by his father as his successor. He was given the possession of the entire estate. In consideration

thereof the appellant agreed with his father to pay a certain sum of money and to give a village to

the illegitimate son of his father, on his attaining majority. It was held that the illegitimate son was

entitled to claim the specified amount and the village as a trust was created in his favour. In Post

Master General v. Ram Kirpal Sahu, it was held that an addressee of insured article can claim

compensation from the Central Government on non-delivery of insured articles as a constructive

trust is created in his favour.

2 Marriage settlement, partition or other family arrangements: In case of family

arrangements if a provision is made for the benefit of a person, he may enforce the agreements

although he is not a party to it. Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that where the

contract is a settlement on marriage, or a compensation of doubtful rights between members of the

same family, any person beneficially entitled there under may obtain specific performance. In Rose

Fernandez v. Joseph Gonsalves, a girl's father agreed to marry her with the defendant. It was held

that the girl after attaining majority was entitled to sue the defendant for damages for the breach of

promise of marriage. In Shuppu Ammal v. Subramaniyam , on partition of a Hindu Undivided Family

two brothers agreed to invest Rs. 300 each for the maintenance of their mother. The mother was

held entitled to sue to enforce the agreement though she was not a party to the contract.

In Sundaraja Aiyangar v. Lakshmi Ammal, a provision was made for the marriage expenses of a

female member of a Hindu Undivided Family at the time of partition of the HUF. The agreement was

made between male members of the HUF. It was held that the female member was entitled to sue

to enforce the agreement. In Daropati V. Jaspat Rai, the defendant's wife deserted him due to his

cruelty. He then Promised her father to treat her properly and in case of his failure to treat Properly

he would pay her monthly maintenance and to provide her a dwellings We was again ill treated and

driven out. It was held that the wire was citied to enforce the promise made by the defendant to her

father

3. Acknowledgement or estoppel: If a person is required under the terms of a contract, to

pay a certain sum of money to a third person and he acknowledges it to that person, he becomes

bound to pay the money to the third person. In Devaraja Urs. v. Ram Krishnaiah, a person sold a


house. He left the sale price in the hands of the buyer for payment to a creditor. The buyer made

part payment to the creditor, promising to pay the balance soon. It was held that the creditor was

entitled to sue the buyer for recovering the balance.

4. Agency: If A has made contract with B, C may intervene and take A's place if he can show that

A was acting throughout as his agent even though B entered into the contract in ignorance of this

fact. Thus undisclosed principal has the right to sue a third party. But this right, as provided in

section 232 is subject to the rights and obligations subsisting between the agent and the third party.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree