Skip to main content

DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

 

MEANING OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

The doctrine of privity of contract means that a contract is a private relationship between the parties to the agreement and no other person can acquire the rights or liabilities under it. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that create an obligation to do or not to do something. a contract cannot confer right or impose obligation on any person except the parties to it. Hence, only party to a contract can sue or be sued for the enforcement of the contractual obligations and a person who is not a party to a contract cannot sue or be sued. 

This establishes the rule "stranger to a contract cannot sue".

Ex. - If A makes a contract with B, he comes under a legal obligation to pay damages if he fails to keep his promise. The enforceability or liability as regards this contract lies firmly in the hands of A and B to the exclusion of others, this is the foundation of the doctrine of privity of contract.

A stranger to a contract means the person who is not party to the contract. the stranger to a contract is known as a third party. 

 

EXCEPTION TO THE DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

The rule that a stranger to a contract cannot sue, is subject to the following exceptions: -

1. In case of beneficiary of a trust: - A trust is always created of some person called as beneficiary. A beneficiary can file a suit to enforce his right even though he is not a party to the contract. 

Ex. - kalu transferred certain property to balu under the trust, to be held by him for the benefit of ramu. if balu refuses to give benefit to ramu, then ramu can enforce the agreement even though he is not the party of contract.

2. In case of family settlement: - when certain arrangement are made for the marriage or maintenance of a particular member of the family then such person for whose benefit the provision is made may enforce the contract.

Note - Marriage and family settlement should be in writing.

Ex. - Two brother, on partition of joint property, agreed to invest certain sum of money, in equal shares, for the maintenance of their mother. later the brothers decided not to part away with such funds. held, mother was entitled to recover from her sons such amount that was invested by the sons.

3. In case of acknowledgement of liability - when the promisor, by his conduct, acknowledges or himself act as an agent of a third party, a binding obligation is thereby incurred by him towards the third party. 

Ex. - Amar receives some money from Akhbar to be paid to the Anthony. Amar admits of his receipt to Anthony. Anthony can recover the amount from Amar, who shall be regarded as the agent of Akhbar.

4. In case of assignment of a contract – Assignment refers to the transferring the right in a contract to a third person. when a contract is assigned in favor of someone, the assignee can enforce the contract, even though he is not a party of a contract.

Ex. - the assignee of an insurance policy of a deceased person, Endorsee of bill of exchange can enforce the contract though he is not a party to a contract.

Note- A contract requiring the use of personal skills (singing, dancing etc.) cannot be assigned

 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
1 comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more