If we compare the two laws, we can say that there are many similarities between English law and Indian law, that only the original parties to a contract can take legal action. However, the scope of the rules of privilege is much broader in Indian law than in English law. This is because the definition and meaning of consideration in Indian law is much broader than in English law (Babu ram Budhu mal and Ors. v. Dhan Singh Bishan Singh 1956). In India, a foreigner or a third party can take legal action if the contract includes consideration, but the same cannot happen in England. As already mentioned, the doctrine of the confidentiality rule of contract law only allows the original parties to be entitled to the terms of the contract. After Linden Gardens v. Lenesta Sludge Disposals [1994], a third-party buyer was allowed to perform a contract of liability for defective construction work. Because the customer could foresee that the building would have to be sold almost immediately and that any faulty construction work would cause damage to the third party. In Darlington BC v. Wiltshier Northern[ 1995], the Commission, which was a third party to a construction agreement between a bank and the builders, after ordering the bank to enter into a contract with the builders, could sue the builder for defective construction work. After a brief discussion, the English Parliament enacted the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to amend the old rule “only the party to a contract could enforce the terms of the contract”.

The act made the changes by empowering third parties to apply the terms to their request. This problem appeared several times until MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916), a case analogous to Winterbottom v. Wright, regarding the defective wheel of a car. Judge Cardozo, writing for the New York Court of Appeals, ruled that no privacy is required if the manufacturer knows that the product is likely to be dangerous if it is defective, if third parties (for example. B, consumers) will be harmed as a result of this defect and that there have been no further tests after the initial sale. Predictable injuries occurred from predictable uses. Cardozo`s innovation was to decide that the basis of the action was that it was a crime and not a breach of contract. In this way, he refined the problems caused by the doctrine of privacy in a modern industrial society. Although his view is only law in new York State, the solution he proposed has been widely accepted elsewhere and has formed the basis of the doctrine of product liability.

This means that a person named in the contract as a person authorized to perform the contract or a person who receives a benefit from the contract may perform the contract unless it appears that the parties intended not to do so. Therefore, if your customer is not a party to the contract (i.e. they are a third party), they cannot sue or be sued under this contract. The privacy rule of contract law raises many questions and demands for reform. First, the rule that deprives a third party of its rights to sue and that only the other party has the right to recover its losses would result in an injustice to the third party. In addition, the rule opens up a space full of uncertainties or complexities due to a large number of common law and legal exceptions. Therefore, the need for reform is great. The “A and B entered into a contract to pay money to C” is what we often see in the subject of the confidentiality rule. Similarly in the famous case of Beswick v. Beswick (1968), where the nephew promised his uncle to pay a certain amount of money to his aunt every week, which is why the uncle sold the business to his nephew. However, after his uncle`s death, the nephew stopped making payments to his aunt, after which the aunt filed a lawsuit against the nephew and claimed damages. However, the court refused to allow the aunt to claim damages because she was not part of the contract.

Therefore, it shows that the rule of privacy can lead to injustice towards third parties. “Contract confidentiality” is a fundamental principle of contract law, which means that only the parties to a contract can enforce its terms. A third party, except in exceptional cases, cannot perform a contract to which it is not a party – it had no “right” in relation to that contract. Although damages are the usual remedy in the event of breach of contract in favour of a third party, a specific benefit may be granted in the event of insufficient damage (Beswick v. Beswick, 1968, AC 59). The validity of the contract is concluded only between the contracting parties, most often a contract for the sale of goods or services. Horizontal privacy protection occurs when the benefits of a contract are to be awarded to a third party. Vertical confidentiality involves a contract between two parties with an independent contract between one of the parties and another person or company. Contract confidentiality is a concept that stipulates that contracts must not transfer rights or obligations to bodies other than those that are contracting parties. Read 3 min It is important to note that the term “any other person” mentioned in Article 2(d) is a third party.

This means that if there is consideration in the contract, it does not matter who provided the consideration. The premise is that only contracting parties should be able to sue in order to assert their rights or claim damages as such. However, the doctrine has proved problematic because it has implications for contracts concluded for the benefit of third parties who are unable to enforce the obligations of the parties. In England and Wales, the doctrine has been significantly weakened by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, which created a statutory exception to privacy (enforceable rights of third parties). Contractual deprivation has also played a key role in the development of negligence. In the first case, Winterbottom v. Wright (1842), in which Winterbottom, a mail truck driver, was injured by a defective wheel, attempted to sue the manufacturer Wright for his injuries. However, the courts have ruled that there is no confidentiality of the contract between the manufacturer and the consumer. If liability has been transferred by deed to a third party, as in Alfred McAlpine Construction v. Panatown [2001], the contracting party is prevented from taking legal action in order to avoid double liability. Another legal principle similar to privacy is the exclusion of questions.

The exclusion of emissions, also known as collateral estoppel or res judicata, prohibits a company from negotiating a problem more than once. However, this does not mean that the parties do not have another form of action: e.B. in Donoghue v. Stevenson – a friend of Mrs. Donoghue bought her a bottle of ginger beer containing the partially decomposed remains of a snail. Since the contract was concluded between her friend and the merchant, Ms. Donoghue could not sue under the contract, but it was found that the manufacturer had breached a duty of care owed to her. As a result, she was awarded tortious damages because she had suffered from gastroenteritis and “distressing shock”.

Attempts were made to circumvent the doctrine by involving trusts (with varying degrees of success), by constructing the Property Act of 1925, p. 56(1), to read the words “other property” to include contractual rights, and applying the concept of restrictive agreements to property other than immovable property (to no avail). The doctrine of contract confidentiality is a common law principle that provides that a contract cannot impose rights or obligations on a person who is not a party to the contract. This article was written by Swetalika Das of Amity University, Kolkata. This is a comprehensive article that talks about the need to reform the privacy rule of contract law. The tenant notes that contrary to the contract she concluded with the owner, the air conditioning of the house is defective. The new tenant discusses the issue with the landlord, who informs them that the AC error is the responsibility of the previous tenant. The new tenant cannot sue the previous tenant because the previous tenant was not a party to the new tenant`s lease with the landlord. Consideration for the formation of enforceable contractsThis practice note examines the doctrine of counterparty and the key role it plays in English law in determining the applicability of a contract. A promise can only be contractually executed if it is made either in an act or in possible reforms of the rule of confidentiality, were made in the 13th century. The report of the Indian Law Reform Commission mentions where they recommended the following reforms: New Zealand has enacted the Deprivation of Contracts Act 1982, which allows third parties to sue if they are sufficiently identified as beneficiaries by the treaty and should be able to apply this benefit explicitly or implicitly in the contract.

An example of a case in which “sufficient identification” is not made is that of Field v. Fitton (1988). .