Privity of contract

There is no privity of contract between [the plaintiff and the defendant] and if the plaintiff can sue, every passenger, or even any person passing along the road, who was injured by the upsetting of the coach, might bring a similar action. Unless we confine the operation of such contracts as this to the parties who entered into them, the most absurd and outrageous consequences...would ensure. 

Under modern condition the ordinary layman...has neither the opportunity nor the capacity to inspect or to determine the fitness of an automobile for use he must rely on the manufacturer who has control of its construction, and to some degree on the dealer who, to the limited extent called for by the manufacturer s instructions, inspects and services it before delivery. In such a marketing milieu his remedies and those of persons who properly claim through him should not depend "upon the intricacies of the law of sales. The obligation of the manufacturer should not be based alone on privity of contract. It should rest, as was once said,... 

A manufacturer was further protected by privity of contract, or the doctrine of privity. It limits the parties involved in a... 

It would] be unjust... to permit manufacturers. .. to create a demand for their products by representing that they possess qualities which they, in fact, do not possess, and then, because there is no privity of contract existing between the consumer and the manufacturer, deny the consumer the right to recover if damages result from the absence of those qualities when such absence is not readily noticeable. 

Under a strict liability theory, no privity of contract is required between the injured party and the seller of the produet. As such, all foreseeable users and consumers of the product who suffered injury caused by the defective product have a right of action against the seller of the product. What an injured party has to prove is that the product left the hands of the seller in a defective condition and that the defect was the cause of his injury. On the other hand, the only defense the seller may raise is the assumption of risk by the user of the product. 

Combining Tort and Contract Advantages. Two methods were available to allow plaintiffs an easier road to recovery. Courts either stripped the tort action of the necessity for estabUshing fault, or interpreted the UCC in such a way that privity was not necessary and the other Code defenses were not appHcable to cases involving personal injury or property damage. Either way a manufacturer would be open to dkect suit without the... 

In the United States, as in the United Kingdom, a contractual right of action generally exists only between parties to the contract. This is known as the rule of privity. Courts in the United States have recognised that, in a mass-consumption society, there is little real privity between manufacturers and consumers Manufacturers are remote to the ultimate consumer, sales are accomplished through intermediaries and products are marketed through... 

One further basic point, which is an important principle in contract terms, is that in general (although there have recendy been some changes in the law) the law applies a doctrine of privity . That is, that a contract only binds the parties to it, and only the parties (or their appointed representatives or legal substitutes) may enforce or sue upon the agreement. This means that a contract between sponsor and CRO does not bind the investigator or any other person. 

Certain clauses (so-called exclusion clauses ) are commonly relied on to exclude or restrict the liability of a party arising through the failure to perform a contract. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 limits this ability to exclude or restrict liability in certain contracts. In particular, it is never possible to exclude or restrict liability in negligence, or in relation to failure to take reasonable care in the performance of a contract, for personal injury or death by reference to any contract term. A contract sets the parameters of liability, and the rules of privity (i.e. only a party to the contract is able to sue) limit the persons who can claim for loss or damage under a contract. Where, however, a duty of care can be established between a person who has manufactured or supplied a product and the person injured then this injured party may be able to sue in tort for the negligence of the manufacturer or supplier (FaUa, 1997). 

---