'the rule of privity can cause injustice but reforms in both statute and common law have helped to avoid this injustice'. Discuss the extent to which this statement is true.

In contract law, privity means the relationships that exist between those engaged in contracts.

Grade: A-C | £2.99.

This essay explains and illustrates the rule of privity of contract as well as the basis for the rule.  The injustice of the cases of Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) and Dunlop Tyre Co v Selfridge (1915) is explained.

The exceptions to the rule are also covered and use is made of appropriate cases which include:

  • Les Affreteurs Reunis v Walford (1919);
  • Tulk v Moxhay ( 1848);
  • Shanklin Pier v Detel Products (1951);
  • Jackson v Horizon holidays (1975);
  • Linden Gardens Trust v Lenesta Sludge (1993).

The matter of statutory exceptions is also included.

The essay then examines issues of injustice following from the rule including:

  • preventing a party from enjoying a benefit as intended;
  • by stopping a sub contractor from being held liable;
  • where consumers are not a party to the original contract;
  • where a third party gains some advantage as they are not bound by the original contract.

The essay may be developed and certain areas expanded upon as necessary to suit individual needs.


(Word count 1469)