45:
467:
have known this). This is only the default position; the act allows parties to insert clauses into the contract which allow them to rescind or alter the contract without the consent of the third party if they so choose. The courts can ignore the consent of the third party and allow the promisor and promisee to change the contract if the third party is mentally incapable, unfindable or if it is impossible to tell if the third party has truly consented. At the same time the courts may add conditions to that decision, such as requiring the promisor or promisee to pay the third party compensation.
559:. The act also excludes contracts for the transport of goods across national lines, as these fall under international trade laws, and terms in an employment contract which allow a third party to sue an employee. These were excluded for one of two reasons – either the position of third parties in those types of contract are too well established to be changed easily, or there are reasons of public policy that make it a bad idea to allow the involvement of third parties, such as contracts of employment.
587:, which require the parties to submit to specific arbitration procedures in the event of disputes. The Law Commission initially excluded arbitration clauses from the act, but later amended their draft bill so as to allow third parties to take advantage of arbitration proceedings. The provisions on arbitration clauses were not received well during the bill's passage through Parliament, and were described as "very messy", "a labyrinth" and "a mire". The Commission initially proposed that
523:) if the promisor breaches the contract. It does so in a very limited way, though – the promisor is only protected if he has first paid damages to the promisee, and the third party's claim comes after that. In addition the act only limits damages paid in this situation, it does not eliminate them. If the promisee brings an action against the promisor and wins, any damages paid to the third party in a subsequent action must take the previous damages paid to the promisee into account.
340:(the successor to the Law Revision Committee) published Consultation Paper No. 121 "Privity of Contract: Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties", which proposed a similar change, and, in July 1996, the final report (No. 242), along with a draft bill, were published. The proposed changes were supported by the legal profession and academics alike. The bill was introduced to the
484:
the term under dispute. The Law
Commission directly rejected the suggestion that the promisor should have every defence in a dispute with a third party that he would have in a dispute with the promisee (regardless of whether or not it could be applied to the disputed term). Part III is directly modelled on the similar section of the New Zealand
423:
dozens of sub-contractors with chains of contracts among them. This argument, and a proposal to exempt the construction industry from the act, was rejected by both the Law
Commission and Parliament. The phrase "purport to confer a benefit" was originally found in the 1937 Law Commission paper, and was used in the New Zealand
172:, had been widely criticised by lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary. Proposals for reform via an act of Parliament were first made in 1937 by the Law Revision Committee in their Sixth Interim Report. No further action was taken by the government until the 1990s, when the Law Commission proposed a new draft
207:. The first rule was not contested, while the second was described as "one of the most universally disliked and criticised blots on the legal landscape". Originally, the second rule was not held to be valid. In the 17th century, a third party was allowed to enforce terms of a contract that benefited him, as shown in
499:, with the Law Commission saying that to apply the same rules would be "misleading and unnecessarily complex". This is because the counterclaim may be more valuable than the original claim, which would impose an obligation on the third party to pay the promisor money, something not appropriate under the
491:
The Act allows the promisor to list additional defences that can be used against the third party in the contract, which can be used to get around the Law
Commission's decision not to give the promisor equal defences against both the third party and promisee by simply listing those additional defences
570:
Weakening the act's effect, section 7(3) prevents third parties from being "treated as a party to the contract" in relying on any other act. Equally section 7(2) gives to defendants (facing action from third parties) the ability to exclude liability for negligence, if reasonable other than for death
483:
Section 3 covers the defences available to the promisor if the third party brings an action against him. In a dispute between the promisor and the third party over a term, the promisor can rely on any defence he would have if the dispute was with the promisee, as long as the defence is applicable to
284:
A second argument used to undermine the doctrine of privity was to point out the large number of exceptions to the rule created by acts of
Parliament, which seemed to indicate that Parliament itself had an issue with the doctrine. Critics also argued that with the large number of inconsistencies and
430:
The third party must be identified by name or as a member of a particular group, and does not need to exist when the contract was made. This can cause problems, however – if, for example, a party (party A) enters a contract to have another party (party B) construct a building, and A later sells the
646:
1 WLR 1468. It did not repeal or abolish these exceptions, however, and this allows the courts to accept cases based on the old common law exceptions as well as the 1999 act. The act specifically allows parties to exempt the provisions of the act from contracts, allowing them a way out if they so
466:
of contracts. It prevents parties to a contract rescinding it or altering it to remove or modify the terms that affect the third party if the third party has told the promisor that he "assents" to the term, or that he has relied on the contract (and the promisor knows this, or could be expected to
526:
If the third party brings an action, and the promisee does so afterwards then the promisee cannot claim any damages. This is because the Law
Commission felt that if the third party claimed compensation for the breach, the promisee would have no interest in the dispute any more. This fails to take
654:
industry for its refusal to make an exception for complex construction contracts, and for the vagueness of the term "purports to confer a benefit". It is generally accepted, however, that it would be unfair to make an exception for a particular industry, and case law has clarified the meaning of
422:
The second situation, that a third party can enforce terms that "purport to confer a benefit on him", has been described by Meryll Dean as too broad, and one view put forward in the parliamentary debates was that it was "un-workable" in situations such as complex construction contracts involving
474:
The third party does not have to have suffered a detriment from his "reliance"; it is enough that he has simply relied on the contract. It must be the third party who relied on the term, rather than another party closely related to the third party. If the third party relies on the terms of the
636:, but the full provisions of the act did not come into force until May 2000. The act made clear that contracts negotiated during a six-month "twilight period" after the act's passage fell under its provisions if they included language saying that they had been made under the terms of the act.
270:
The second rule of privity, that a third party cannot claim benefits from a contract, was widely criticised by academics, members of the judiciary and legal professionals. One problem was that the rule made no exceptions for cases where it was obviously intended for the third party to claim a
527:
into account situations where the promisee has suffered personal loss from the breach of contract. If the promisee brings an action first then the third party is prohibited from doing so, unless the promisee's action fails, in which case the third party is free to pursue his own claim.
438:. An exception to this is the ability to terminate the contract and have it rendered void, since the Law Commission believed that "the third party should not be entitled to terminate the contract for breach as this may be contrary to the promisee's wishes or interests".
285:
exceptions with the doctrine of privity, it was a "bad" law, as it provided no reliable rule; the way that the law works in theory is hugely different from how it is enforced in the courts. The doctrine is also not found in many other legal systems, such as that of the
470:
Assenting is considered complete when the third party "communicates" his assent to the promisor, which can be done in a variety of ways, including by post. The contract may specify the communication method(s), and if it does, any other method is not valid.
381:. It allows a third party to enforce the terms of a contract in one of two situations: firstly if the third party is specifically mentioned in the contract as someone authorised to do so, and secondly if the contract "purports to confer a benefit" on him.
202:
The historical doctrine of privity consisted of two rules. The first was that a third party may not have obligations imposed by the terms of a contract, and the second was that a third party may not enforce a contract for which he has not provided
312:
wrote that "t is said that it serves only to defeat the legitimate expectations of the third party, that it undermines the social interest of the community in the security of bargains and it is commercially inconvenient".
441:
Although the topic is not discussed in the Law
Commission's report or the bill itself, it is generally considered that the third party has no rights against the promisee, regardless of his rights against the promisor.
384:
An exception to the "purports to confer a benefit" basis for enforceability involves contracts that include language barring third parties from applying the rule. Another exception applies to contracts between
639:
The act had various consequences – as well as allowing third parties to enforce terms it also made a number of exceptions to the basic rule unnecessary, such as claiming on behalf of another party as seen in
591:
be specifically excluded from the act. During the bill's passage through
Parliament, however, this exclusion disappeared, and the act's explanatory notes assume that the act covers jurisdiction clauses.
655:"purports to confer a benefit". It is also now routine in commercial contexts for enforcement by third parties to be excluded under the terms of the contract, as permitted by section 1(2) of the Act.
281:, where an uncle gave his nephew a business, on the condition that the nephew would pay the uncle a certain amount per week, and in the event of the uncle's death, give a lesser amount to his widow.
567:
Section 7(1) confirms that any exceptions to the rule of privity which existed prior to the 1999 act remain valid. This confirms the act does not supersede impliedly earlier protection of the law.
650:
The reaction from the judiciary, legal profession and academia was largely supportive of the act; the doctrine of privity had long been thought unfair. The act has been criticised somewhat by the
600:
Section 9 takes into account the differences between
English and Northern Irish law, and modifies how the act should be interpreted in Northern Ireland. Particularly it replaces the use of the
434:
If a third party chooses to enforce the terms of a contract, he can do so against the promisor and has the right to any remedy that would be available if he was party to the contract, such as
511:
Section 4 preserves the right of the promisee to enforce any term of the contract. This allows the promisee to sue for any losses to themselves, but not for losses of the third party.
329:
intervened, and the report was not acted on; even as late as 1986 the assumption was that
Parliament would not act, and any reform would come from judicial sources (in particular, the
232:
Over the next 200 years, different judges provided different decisions as to whether or not a third party could enforce a contract that benefited them. The dispute ended in 1861 with
869:
475:
contract, which are then breached, he can not only claim damages for any loss he suffered from relying on the contract but also for "standard" damages, such as loss of profit.
371:
229:
found that a third party had no rights to enforce a contract that benefited him. This ruling was quickly reversed, and decisions immediately after used the original rule.
325:, in their Sixth Interim Report, proposed an act of Parliament that would allow third parties to enforce terms of a contract that specified that they were allowed. The
1937:
408:
243:
519:
Section 5 helps protect the promisor from double liability (having to pay two sets of damages for the same breach, one to the third party and one to the
679:
216:, where the judgement stated that "the party to whom the benefit of a promise accrews, may bring his action". The first reversal of this law came in
330:
153:
168:
on the legal landscape". The second rule of the doctrine of privity, that a third party could not enforce a contract for which he had not provided
1569:
Andrews, Neil (2001). "Strangers to justice no longer: the reversal of the privity rule under the
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999".
503:
which prohibits the placing of a burden or obligation on a third party. Again, the parties to the contract can insert a clause overriding this.
609:
431:
building to C who finds that it has structural problems, C has no cause of action against B because he was not named in the original contract.
349:
181:
67:
1910:
1891:
1769:
1675:
1497:
817:
251:
241:, which confirmed that a third party could not enforce a contract that benefited him. This decision was affirmed by the House of Lords in
1616:
776:
369:
Section 1 of the act overrides the old common law rule that a third party could not enforce the terms of a contract, as established in
226:
402:
argued that in a situation where the promisor felt that the second rule had been wrongly applied by a statement in the contract, the
1868:
1849:
1750:
883:
879:
632:, which has its own rules on privity and the rights of third parties. The act came into law on 11 November 1999 when it received
157:
49:
1808:
Roe, Thomas (2000). "Contractual Intention under Section 1(1)(b) and 1(2) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999".
446:, who prepared the Law Commission's report, said that the third party does not acquire rights against the promisee, something
254:
stated that only a person who was party to a contract could sue on it. This version of the doctrine is commonly known as the
696:
642:
605:
572:
1932:
672:
556:
293:
535:
Section 6 creates exceptions to the scope of the act. While the act applies to standard contracts and contracts made by
443:
204:
169:
798:
1707:
MacMillan, Catharine (2000). "A Birthday Present for Lord Denning: The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999".
575:
which subject all such provisions with a counterparty consumer to the contract to the condition of reasonableness.
485:
424:
463:
828:
787:
765:
707:
665:
843:
500:
322:
301:
197:
161:
540:
416:
403:
188:
on 11 November 1999, coming into force immediately as the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
57:
1903:
Contract law and practice: the English system with Scottish, Commonwealth, and Continental comparisons
1659:
209:
625:
435:
305:
84:
218:
588:
173:
1825:
1796:
1726:
1637:
Dean, Meryll (2000). "Removing a blot on the landscape – the reform of the doctrine of privity".
1624:
Carson, Veronica; Michael Clode (2000). "The end of privity of contract in the United Kingdom?".
601:
584:
552:
451:
377:
234:
348:
as a birthday present due to his fight to overturn the doctrine of privity. It was moved to the
1906:
1887:
1864:
1845:
1765:
1746:
1709:
1671:
1493:
742:
520:
375:, and also the rule that a third party was unable to act against the promisor, established in
277:
116:
1817:
1788:
1718:
1599:
1578:
839:
754:
544:
1532:
1837:
1738:
1516:
548:
447:
399:
80:
454:, where a promisee has a duty to the third party to ensure performance of the contract.
1880:
1779:
Palmer, Vernon V. (1989). "The History of Privity – The Formative Period (1500–1680)".
1664:
657:
341:
337:
321:
The first legislative proposal to reform the doctrine of privity was made in 1937; the
177:
133:
1926:
730:
412:
395:
391:
309:
286:
247:
238:
222:
213:
495:
The Act takes a different attitude for the defences available to the third party in
1513:
Dolphin Maritime & Aviation Services Ltd v Sveriges Angartygs Assurans Forening
651:
633:
496:
353:
345:
326:
297:
185:
165:
106:
62:
An Act to make provision for the enforcement of contractual terms by third parties.
176:
in 1991, and presented their final report in 1996. The bill was introduced to the
621:
1554:
The legislation uses the pronouns "he" and "him" in this section and elsewhere.
140:
1582:
1821:
1722:
1603:
629:
386:
344:
on 3 December 1998, and, during its second reading, was jokingly offered to
292:
The doctrine came under criticism from many academics and judges, including
1535:, 1 All ER (Comm) 481, 1 LLR 38, 1 Lloyd's Rep 38 (7 November 2003)
17:
1646:
Flannigan, Robert (October 1987). "Privity – the end of an era (error)".
1519:, 1 All ER (Comm) 473, 2 Lloyds Rep 123, 1 CLC 460 (2 April 2009)
1829:
1730:
1698:
Jacobs, Edward (1986). "Judicial reform of privity and consideration".
1685:
Hughes, Martin (2000). "Contracts (Rights Of Third Parties) Act 1999".
874:
1800:
1792:
571:
or personal injury; it disapplies the protection of s.2(2) of the
164:
and "thereby one of the most universally disliked and criticised
536:
1687:
Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law
661:
1590:
Bridge, Michael (2001). "Privity of contract; Third parties".
1529:
Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Company Ltd & Ors
1613:
Reforming Privity of Contract: Law Commission Report No. 242
563:
Section 7: Supplementary provisions relating to third party
365:
Section 1: Right of third party to enforce contractual term
610:
Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Northern Ireland) Act 1964
389:
and their clients to write wills, something governed by
515:
Section 5: Protection of promisor from double liability
1253:
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 S.2(1)(a)
372:
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
450:
has also suggested. A different stance is taken in
1294:
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 S.3(2)
1271:
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 S.2(1)
1193:
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 S.1(5)
1175:
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 S.1(3)
1108:
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 S.1(2)
1090:
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 S.1(1)
604:in Part VI with the Northern Irish equivalent, the
539:, it does not apply to contracts made as a part of
139:
132:
125:
115:
105:
100:
90:
76:
66:
56:
1879:
1663:
608:. Section 9 also repeals sections 5 and 6 of the
1445:Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1990 S.9
1327:Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1990 s.4
1488:Goode, Royston Miles; McKendrick, Ewan (2020).
458:Section 2: Variation and rescission of contract
507:Section 4: Enforcement of contract by promisee
409:Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd
673:
8:
870:"House of Lords Hansard, Vol. 595, Col. 605"
719:Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
462:Section 2 of the Act governs changes to and
244:Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Selfridge and Co Ltd
150:Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
33:Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
32:
1492:(6 ed.). London: Penguin Books. 3.89.
864:
862:
427:before it was adopted for the English act.
160:that significantly reformed the common law
1670:(15th ed.). Oxford University Press.
1626:Journal of International Financial Markets
680:
666:
658:
31:
1844:(6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
1432:
1430:
1384:
1382:
1380:
1378:
1376:
1374:
1350:
1348:
1346:
1344:
1342:
1240:
1238:
479:Section 3: Defences available to promisor
1465:
1463:
1453:
1451:
1314:
1312:
1281:
1279:
1277:
1201:
1199:
1141:
1139:
1137:
1135:
999:
997:
1547:
1364:
1362:
1360:
1302:
1300:
1153:
1151:
1116:
1114:
1041:
1039:
1011:
1009:
942:
940:
909:
907:
905:
903:
901:
858:
606:Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
1938:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 1999
1863:(11th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
1490:Goode and McKendrick on commercial law
96:England and Wales and Northern Ireland
1781:The American Journal of Legal History
921:
919:
818:Wrotham Park Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd
398:. After the act was first published,
271:benefit, such as the young couple in
134:Text of statute as originally enacted
7:
1745:(7th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
688:Cases and main statutes on covenants
1533:[2003] EWHC 2602 (Comm)
777:Morrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford UFC
492:the promisor would like access to.
180:in December 1998, and moved to the
1517:[2009] EWHC 716 (Comm)
266:Criticism of the original doctrine
141:Revised text of statute as amended
25:
1842:An Outline of the Law of Contract
882:. 3 December 1999. Archived from
579:Section 8: Arbitration provisions
880:Parliament of the United Kingdom
583:The Act allows the insertion of
406:would be on him to prove it. In
158:Parliament of the United Kingdom
50:Parliament of the United Kingdom
43:
1886:(2nd ed.). Hodder Arnold.
551:, or contracts governed by the
419:supported Treitel's reasoning.
1787:(1). Temple University: 3–52.
697:Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd
643:Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd
573:Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
1:
184:on 14 June 1999. It received
1905:. Kluwer Law International.
486:Contracts (Privity) Act 1982
425:Contracts (Privity) Act 1982
352:on 14 June, and it received
1764:(5th ed.). Routledge.
1762:Contract Law in Perspective
596:Section 9: Northern Ireland
127:Status: Current legislation
1954:
195:
29:United Kingdom legislation
1901:Whincup, Michael (2006).
1859:Treitel, Guenter (2003).
1583:10.1017/S0008197301000150
836:
826:
814:
807:
795:
785:
773:
763:
751:
739:
727:
715:
705:
693:
42:
37:
1611:Burrows, Andrew (1996).
982:McKendrick (2007) p. vii
925:McKendrick (2007) p. 137
829:Law of Property Act 1925
788:Law of Property Act 1925
766:Law of Property Act 1925
708:Law of Property Act 1925
616:Scope and implementation
92:Territorial extent
1822:10.1111/1468-2230.00299
1760:Mulcahy, Linda (2008).
1723:10.1111/1468-2230.00288
1700:Journal of Business Law
1639:Journal of Business Law
1604:10.3366/elr.2001.5.1.85
1478:McKendrick (2007) p.155
1368:McKendrick (2007) p.154
1336:McKendrick (2007) p.160
1318:McKendrick (2007) p.153
1285:McKendrick (2007) p.152
1205:McKendrick (2007) p.151
1184:McKendrick (2007) p.149
1129:McKendrick (2007) p.147
1024:Flannigan (1987) p. 569
1003:Flannigan (1987) p. 572
955:Flannigan (1987) p. 565
946:Flannigan (1987) p. 564
809:Easements Reform (2008)
799:Re Dolphin’s Conveyance
557:articles of association
1882:Unlocking Contract Law
1878:Turner, Chris (2007).
541:negotiable instruments
323:Law Revision Committee
198:Privity in English law
1810:The Modern Law Review
1571:Cambridge Law Journal
1424:Furmston (2007) p.593
1063:MacMillan (200) p.721
1033:Treitel (1983) p. 458
531:Section 6: Exceptions
356:on 11 November 1999.
227:Court of King's Bench
1933:English contract law
1648:Law Quarterly Review
1592:Edinburgh Law Review
1436:Andrews (2001) p.364
1388:Andrews (2001) p.363
1354:Andrews (2001) p.362
1306:Andrews (2001) p.361
1244:Stevens (2004) p.303
1232:Treitel (2003) p.658
1223:Burrows (1996) p.544
1214:Stevens (2004) p.304
1157:Andrews (2001) p.360
1120:Andrews (2001) p.355
1081:Andrews (2001) p.353
1015:Jacobs (1986) p. 466
991:Mulcahy (2008) p. 95
973:Turner (2007) p. vii
964:Mulcahy (2008) p. 94
589:jurisdiction clauses
436:specific performance
306:Arthur Linton Corbin
85:Lord Irvine of Lairg
1469:Turner (2007) p.380
1415:Hughes (1999) p.439
1406:Whincup (2006) p.84
1166:Whincup (2006) p.83
1054:Hughes (1999) p.431
1045:Turner (2007) p.379
620:The act applies in
585:arbitration clauses
501:doctrine of privity
162:doctrine of privity
34:
1072:Bridge (2001) p.85
602:Companies Act 1985
553:Companies Act 1985
378:Tweddle v Atkinson
275:, or the widow in
273:Tweddle v Atkinson
235:Tweddle v Atkinson
1912:978-90-411-2521-7
1893:978-0-340-94196-6
1771:978-0-415-44432-3
1710:Modern Law Review
1677:978-0-19-928756-7
1660:Furmston, Michael
1499:978-0-14-199188-7
1457:Dean (2000) p.149
1397:Carson (2000) p.2
1262:Dean (2000) p.148
1145:Dean (2000) p.145
1099:Dean (2000) p.144
913:Dean (2000) p.143
850:
849:
743:Halsall v Brizell
622:England and Wales
545:bills of exchange
278:Beswick v Beswick
146:
145:
38:Act of Parliament
16:(Redirected from
1945:
1916:
1897:
1885:
1874:
1855:
1838:Treitel, Guenter
1833:
1804:
1775:
1756:
1739:McKendrick, Ewan
1734:
1703:
1694:
1681:
1669:
1655:
1642:
1633:
1620:
1607:
1586:
1555:
1552:
1536:
1526:
1520:
1510:
1504:
1503:
1485:
1479:
1476:
1470:
1467:
1458:
1455:
1446:
1443:
1437:
1434:
1425:
1422:
1416:
1413:
1407:
1404:
1398:
1395:
1389:
1386:
1369:
1366:
1355:
1352:
1337:
1334:
1328:
1325:
1319:
1316:
1307:
1304:
1295:
1292:
1286:
1283:
1272:
1269:
1263:
1260:
1254:
1251:
1245:
1242:
1233:
1230:
1224:
1221:
1215:
1212:
1206:
1203:
1194:
1191:
1185:
1182:
1176:
1173:
1167:
1164:
1158:
1155:
1146:
1143:
1130:
1127:
1121:
1118:
1109:
1106:
1100:
1097:
1091:
1088:
1082:
1079:
1073:
1070:
1064:
1061:
1055:
1052:
1046:
1043:
1034:
1031:
1025:
1022:
1016:
1013:
1004:
1001:
992:
989:
983:
980:
974:
971:
965:
962:
956:
953:
947:
944:
935:
934:Dean (2000) p. 1
932:
926:
923:
914:
911:
896:
895:
893:
891:
866:
840:English land law
755:Rhone v Stephens
720:
682:
675:
668:
659:
626:Northern Ireland
549:promissory notes
350:House of Commons
327:Second World War
210:Provender v Wood
182:House of Commons
121:11 November 1999
111:11 November 1999
93:
47:
46:
35:
21:
1953:
1952:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1923:
1922:
1919:
1913:
1900:
1894:
1877:
1871:
1861:Law of Contract
1858:
1852:
1836:
1807:
1778:
1772:
1759:
1753:
1737:
1706:
1697:
1684:
1678:
1666:Law of Contract
1658:
1645:
1636:
1623:
1610:
1589:
1568:
1564:
1559:
1558:
1553:
1549:
1544:
1539:
1527:
1523:
1511:
1507:
1500:
1487:
1486:
1482:
1477:
1473:
1468:
1461:
1456:
1449:
1444:
1440:
1435:
1428:
1423:
1419:
1414:
1410:
1405:
1401:
1396:
1392:
1387:
1372:
1367:
1358:
1353:
1340:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1322:
1317:
1310:
1305:
1298:
1293:
1289:
1284:
1275:
1270:
1266:
1261:
1257:
1252:
1248:
1243:
1236:
1231:
1227:
1222:
1218:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1197:
1192:
1188:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1170:
1165:
1161:
1156:
1149:
1144:
1133:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1112:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1085:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1058:
1053:
1049:
1044:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1019:
1014:
1007:
1002:
995:
990:
986:
981:
977:
972:
968:
963:
959:
954:
950:
945:
938:
933:
929:
924:
917:
912:
899:
889:
887:
868:
867:
860:
856:
851:
846:
832:
822:
810:
803:
791:
781:
769:
759:
747:
735:
734:(1848) 2 Ph 774
723:
718:
711:
701:
689:
686:
618:
598:
581:
565:
533:
517:
509:
481:
460:
448:Guenter Treitel
400:Guenter Treitel
367:
362:
319:
268:
250:in 1915, where
200:
194:
152:(c. 31) is an
128:
91:
81:Lord Chancellor
52:
44:
30:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1951:
1949:
1941:
1940:
1935:
1925:
1924:
1918:
1917:
1911:
1898:
1892:
1875:
1869:
1856:
1850:
1834:
1816:(6): 887–894.
1805:
1793:10.2307/845785
1776:
1770:
1757:
1751:
1735:
1717:(5): 721–738.
1704:
1695:
1693:(10): 431–436.
1682:
1676:
1656:
1643:
1634:
1621:
1608:
1587:
1577:(2): 353–381.
1565:
1563:
1560:
1557:
1556:
1546:
1545:
1543:
1540:
1538:
1537:
1521:
1505:
1498:
1480:
1471:
1459:
1447:
1438:
1426:
1417:
1408:
1399:
1390:
1370:
1356:
1338:
1329:
1320:
1308:
1296:
1287:
1273:
1264:
1255:
1246:
1234:
1225:
1216:
1207:
1195:
1186:
1177:
1168:
1159:
1147:
1131:
1122:
1110:
1101:
1092:
1083:
1074:
1065:
1056:
1047:
1035:
1026:
1017:
1005:
993:
984:
975:
966:
957:
948:
936:
927:
915:
897:
857:
855:
852:
848:
847:
837:
834:
833:
827:
824:
823:
815:
812:
811:
808:
805:
804:
796:
793:
792:
786:
783:
782:
774:
771:
770:
764:
761:
760:
752:
749:
748:
740:
737:
736:
728:
725:
724:
716:
713:
712:
706:
703:
702:
694:
691:
690:
687:
685:
684:
677:
670:
662:
617:
614:
597:
594:
580:
577:
564:
561:
532:
529:
516:
513:
508:
505:
480:
477:
459:
456:
444:Andrew Burrows
366:
363:
361:
358:
342:House of Lords
338:Law Commission
331:House of Lords
318:
315:
267:
264:
219:Bourne v Mason
196:Main article:
193:
190:
178:House of Lords
144:
143:
137:
136:
130:
129:
126:
123:
122:
119:
113:
112:
109:
103:
102:
98:
97:
94:
88:
87:
78:
74:
73:
70:
64:
63:
60:
54:
53:
48:
40:
39:
28:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1950:
1939:
1936:
1934:
1931:
1930:
1928:
1921:
1914:
1908:
1904:
1899:
1895:
1889:
1884:
1883:
1876:
1872:
1870:0-421-78850-X
1866:
1862:
1857:
1853:
1851:0-406-97268-0
1847:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1777:
1773:
1767:
1763:
1758:
1754:
1752:0-230-01883-1
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1711:
1705:
1702:(6): 466–473.
1701:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1683:
1679:
1673:
1668:
1667:
1661:
1657:
1654:(4): 564–593.
1653:
1649:
1644:
1641:(2): 143–152.
1640:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1598:(1): 85–102.
1597:
1593:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1567:
1566:
1561:
1551:
1548:
1541:
1534:
1530:
1525:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1509:
1506:
1501:
1495:
1491:
1484:
1481:
1475:
1472:
1466:
1464:
1460:
1454:
1452:
1448:
1442:
1439:
1433:
1431:
1427:
1421:
1418:
1412:
1409:
1403:
1400:
1394:
1391:
1385:
1383:
1381:
1379:
1377:
1375:
1371:
1365:
1363:
1361:
1357:
1351:
1349:
1347:
1345:
1343:
1339:
1333:
1330:
1324:
1321:
1315:
1313:
1309:
1303:
1301:
1297:
1291:
1288:
1282:
1280:
1278:
1274:
1268:
1265:
1259:
1256:
1250:
1247:
1241:
1239:
1235:
1229:
1226:
1220:
1217:
1211:
1208:
1202:
1200:
1196:
1190:
1187:
1181:
1178:
1172:
1169:
1163:
1160:
1154:
1152:
1148:
1142:
1140:
1138:
1136:
1132:
1126:
1123:
1117:
1115:
1111:
1105:
1102:
1096:
1093:
1087:
1084:
1078:
1075:
1069:
1066:
1060:
1057:
1051:
1048:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1030:
1027:
1021:
1018:
1012:
1010:
1006:
1000:
998:
994:
988:
985:
979:
976:
970:
967:
961:
958:
952:
949:
943:
941:
937:
931:
928:
922:
920:
916:
910:
908:
906:
904:
902:
898:
886:on 1 May 2007
885:
881:
877:
876:
871:
865:
863:
859:
853:
845:
841:
835:
830:
825:
820:
819:
813:
806:
801:
800:
794:
789:
784:
779:
778:
772:
767:
762:
757:
756:
750:
745:
744:
738:
733:
732:
731:Tulk v Moxhay
726:
721:
714:
709:
704:
699:
698:
692:
683:
678:
676:
671:
669:
664:
663:
660:
656:
653:
648:
645:
644:
637:
635:
631:
627:
623:
615:
613:
611:
607:
603:
595:
593:
590:
586:
578:
576:
574:
568:
562:
560:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
530:
528:
524:
522:
514:
512:
506:
504:
502:
498:
497:counterclaims
493:
489:
487:
478:
476:
472:
468:
465:
457:
455:
453:
449:
445:
439:
437:
432:
428:
426:
420:
418:
414:
411:
410:
405:
401:
397:
394:
393:
392:White v Jones
388:
382:
380:
379:
374:
373:
364:
359:
357:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:In 1991, the
334:
332:
328:
324:
316:
314:
311:
310:Stephen Guest
307:
303:
299:
295:
290:
288:
287:United States
282:
280:
279:
274:
265:
263:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
245:
240:
237:
236:
230:
228:
224:
221:
220:
215:
212:
211:
206:
205:consideration
199:
191:
189:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
170:consideration
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
142:
138:
135:
131:
124:
120:
118:
114:
110:
108:
104:
99:
95:
89:
86:
82:
79:
77:Introduced by
75:
71:
69:
65:
61:
59:
55:
51:
41:
36:
27:
19:
1920:
1902:
1881:
1860:
1841:
1813:
1809:
1784:
1780:
1761:
1743:Contract Law
1742:
1714:
1708:
1699:
1690:
1686:
1665:
1651:
1647:
1638:
1629:
1625:
1612:
1595:
1591:
1574:
1570:
1562:Bibliography
1550:
1528:
1524:
1512:
1508:
1489:
1483:
1474:
1441:
1420:
1411:
1402:
1393:
1332:
1323:
1290:
1267:
1258:
1249:
1228:
1219:
1210:
1189:
1180:
1171:
1162:
1125:
1104:
1095:
1086:
1077:
1068:
1059:
1050:
1029:
1020:
987:
978:
969:
960:
951:
930:
888:. Retrieved
884:the original
873:
816:
797:
775:
753:
741:
729:
717:
695:
652:construction
649:
641:
638:
634:royal assent
619:
599:
582:
569:
566:
534:
525:
518:
510:
494:
490:
482:
473:
469:
461:
440:
433:
429:
421:
407:
390:
383:
376:
370:
368:
354:royal assent
346:Lord Denning
335:
320:
298:Lord Denning
294:Lord Scarman
291:
283:
276:
272:
269:
259:
255:
252:Lord Haldane
242:
233:
231:
225:, where the
217:
208:
201:
186:royal assent
149:
147:
117:Commencement
107:Royal assent
26:
1927:Categories
890:9 December
878:. London:
854:References
628:, but not
555:, such as
464:rescission
417:High Court
387:solicitors
360:Provisions
262:doctrine.
239:121 ER 762
192:Background
72:1999 c. 31
58:Long title
18:CRTPA 1999
844:covenants
821:1 WLR 798
452:Scots law
413:EWHC 2602
317:Formation
302:Lord Reid
214:Hetley 30
1840:(1983).
1741:(2007).
1662:(2007).
1632:(2): 61.
758:2 AC 310
700:2 KB 500
647:choose.
630:Scotland
521:promisee
396:2 AC 207
256:original
68:Citation
1830:1097262
1731:1097046
875:Hansard
831:s 84(1)
790:s 78(1)
768:s 79(1)
710:s 56(1)
223:1 Vent.
156:of the
1909:
1890:
1867:
1848:
1828:
1801:845785
1799:
1768:
1749:
1729:
1674:
1496:
802:Ch 654
780:Ch 459
746:Ch 169
722:s 1(1)
415:, the
308:, and
248:AC 847
1826:JSTOR
1797:JSTOR
1727:JSTOR
1542:Notes
1531:
1515:
537:deeds
260:basic
166:blots
101:Dates
1907:ISBN
1888:ISBN
1865:ISBN
1846:ISBN
1766:ISBN
1747:ISBN
1672:ISBN
1617:HMSO
1494:ISBN
892:2009
842:and
838:see
624:and
404:onus
304:and
174:bill
148:The
1818:doi
1789:doi
1719:doi
1652:103
1600:doi
1579:doi
547:or
333:).
258:or
154:Act
1929::
1824:.
1814:63
1812:.
1795:.
1785:33
1783:.
1725:.
1715:63
1713:.
1691:14
1689:.
1650:.
1628:.
1615:.
1594:.
1575:60
1573:.
1462:^
1450:^
1429:^
1373:^
1359:^
1341:^
1311:^
1299:^
1276:^
1237:^
1198:^
1150:^
1134:^
1113:^
1038:^
1008:^
996:^
939:^
918:^
900:^
872:.
861:^
612:.
543:,
488:.
300:,
296:,
289:.
83:,
1915:.
1896:.
1873:.
1854:.
1832:.
1820::
1803:.
1791::
1774:.
1755:.
1733:.
1721::
1680:.
1630:2
1619:.
1606:.
1602::
1596:5
1585:.
1581::
1502:.
894:.
681:e
674:t
667:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.