Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
18 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Selfridge - 1915 UK |
Acquisition of contractual rights by third party - Only a person who is a party to a contract can sue This is a traditional rule. |
|
|
The Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 |
Does not abolish the rule (only a person who is a party to a contract can sue) but does modify it = the rule still exists where statute does not apply. |
|
|
s4 The Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 |
- States that where a benefit is given to a person outside of the contract, the burden is on the promisor to perform that promise. |
|
|
Rattrays Wholesale v Meredyth Young |
Concerns s4 of the CPA Tipping J: The reality is that the nominee gets the benefit from the contract and the nomination, as it is the contract which allows the nomination. - Confirmed in Laidlaw v Parsonage |
|
|
Allison v KPMG Peat Marwick - NZ 2000 |
Tipping J said that the benefit to the third party was available, but wasn't allowed here as the vendor was not appropriately designated under s4. = section 4 is very important - as designates who is eligible for the benefit. |
|
|
Field v Fitton - NZ 1988 |
Nomination Case - someone who is 'designated' must be qualified as a particular phrase or class unless the phrasing "nominee" is present. |
|
|
Rattrays Wholesale v Meredyth (Nomination case) Confirmed in Laidlaw v Parsonage - 2010 (all doubt laid to rest). |
- Tipping J took a wider approach and said that the definition was that the promisor and nominee to know with certainty who could claim the benefit, but once nominated that person was identified with certainty. - There is no difference referring to X as a nominee and the person who wasn't yet in existence who wasn't specifically declared to exist. |
|
|
Defective Property Cases Options (three) |
1. Purchaser of house may suffer loss but cannot sue as not designated. 2. B warrants house is habitable: extends to the benefit of C (purchaser) and so C is under warranty and can sue A. 3. If there is no reference to C, but contract says that the warranty extends to purchaser then C has to identify themselves as the purchaser. NB: can also exclude a class under s4 and this will be sufficient. |
|
|
McKinlay Hendry v Tonkin & Taylor |
Pre-incorporation case: In pre-incorporation the company does not exist yet. = providing that the requirements under s4 have been met then it is sufficient and the company (even if does not yet exist) will be allowed the benefit. |
|
|
Saunders v BNZ - NZ 2002 |
The Proviso - Lawsoc investors case - Customer of the firm was able to claim the benefit where the inspector would detect no fraud. |
|
|
Beswick v Beswick - UK 1967 |
Remedies of the Promise: specific performance - nephew made promise to keep giving uncle's widow money when uncle died in exchange of uncle's business. Nephew refused once uncle died. Widow brought personal claim: failed as the benefit of the contract was made through other people. But she brought an estate claim also which succeed and nephew forced to pay. |
|
|
Snelling v John Snelling |
Remedies of the Promise: declaration - brothers company & loan case. - Held: individual brother could sue the company as the agreement was not under the companies' name, however, the brothers could each enforce separate proceedings so no point in allowing the claim to succeed. |
|
|
Jackson v Horizon Holidays |
Remedies of the Promise: damages for the third party - Family holiday turned out to be a disaster and loss enjoyment of it. - Plaintiff could recover damages for himself but there was questions if he could also remedy the third party, his children and wife, who also suffered at the work of the defendant. |
|
|
Woodar Investments v Wimpey |
Remedies of the Promise: damages for the third party - Affirmed the basic rule that you can't recover for a third party - rejected Denning's obiter in Jackson v Horizon Holidays. |
|
|
Dunlop v Lambert |
Remedies of the Promise: damages for the third party exception - Consignor from overseas could recover for goods lost at sea during the journey. - In cargo carry case there is an exception that third party can claim. |
|
|
Linden Gardens Trust v Lenesta Sludge District |
Remedies of the Promise: damages for the third party exception - The third party would foreseeably suffer a loss - and contracting party could recover in respect to the third party's loss - Case regarding a building development |
|
|
Alfred McAlpine v Panatown |
Remedies of the Promise: damages for the third party exception to the exception - No justification for applying Linden Gardens if the third party has direct remedy against the party to the contract |
|
|
Price v Easton |
Remedies of the Promise: where there is legal obligation to third party - The promisee recovers damages in respect of his own loss in ensuring that the third party receives the intended benefit. |
