Trust of a Promise in Privity of Contract Watch

gethsemane342
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Quick question. Probably meaningless but it's been bugging me.

Under the trust of a promise exception to privity, my textbooks say it operates like this: A breaches the contract. B holds the promise on trust for C and can therefore sue A and pass the damages to C. However, if B refuses to sue then C can sue instead and join B as a defendant.

The point which confuses me is that if C is suing, why has he gone from being the claimant to the defendant? Or was he never a defendant? Is he even suing A for that matter? :confused:

Would be appreciated if someone could help me out I don't want to ask my supervisor since he doesn't much like me...
0
reply
Festina lente
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
In the first example C isn't a party to the litigation at all, he's just standing on the sidelines waiting for B to finish suing A.

In the second example C takes advantage of his status as beneficiary and basically steps into B's shoes to sue A joning the recalcitrant trustee B as co-defendant.

C's other option is to bring an action to force B to sue A.
1
reply
jjarvis
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by gethsemane342)
Quick question. Probably meaningless but it's been bugging me.

Under the trust of a promise exception to privity, my textbooks say it operates like this: A breaches the contract. B holds the promise on trust for C and can therefore sue A and pass the damages to C. However, if B refuses to sue then C can sue instead and join B as a defendant.

The point which confuses me is that if C is suing, why has he gone from being the claimant to the defendant? Or was he never a defendant? Is he even suing A for that matter? :confused:

Would be appreciated if someone could help me out I don't want to ask my supervisor since he doesn't much like me...
I found trusts of promises quite confusing. Chitty goes into more depth and explains things a bit more clearly, so it might actually be worth looking at that.
0
reply
gethsemane342
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by Festina lente)
In the first example C isn't a party to the litigation at all, he's just standing on the sidelines waiting for B to finish suing A.

In the second example C takes advantage of his status as beneficiary and basically steps into B's shoes to sue A joning the recalcitrant trustee B as co-defendant.

C's other option is to bring an action to force B to sue A.
Ah, I misphrased myself, sorry. I meant, why was B ever the defendant if A is being sued? That's the part I don't understand. I know C becomes a co-defendant with B, I just don't understand why they're the defendants if C is sueing A. But thanks anyway

(Original post by jjarvis)
I found trusts of promises quite confusing. Chitty goes into more depth and explains things a bit more clearly, so it might actually be worth looking at that.
Cheers! I'll have a read of it tomorrow
0
reply
Festina lente
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by gethsemane342)
Ah, I misphrased myself, sorry. I meant, why was B ever the defendant if A is being sued? That's the part I don't understand. I know C becomes a co-defendant with B, I just don't understand why they're the defendants if C is sueing A. But thanks anyway
Oh I see ... I had always assumed that B was being sued on the basis that by refusing to do his job he has caused loss to the trust, i.e. to C, though presumably C isn't allowed to recover twice!

Can't say I have a definite source for that though.
0
reply
The West Wing
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by gethsemane342)
Quick question. Probably meaningless but it's been bugging me.

Under the trust of a promise exception to privity, my textbooks say it operates like this: A breaches the contract. B holds the promise on trust for C and can therefore sue A and pass the damages to C. However, if B refuses to sue then C can sue instead and join B as a defendant.

The point which confuses me is that if C is suing, why has he gone from being the claimant to the defendant? Or was he never a defendant? Is he even suing A for that matter? :confused:

Would be appreciated if someone could help me out I don't want to ask my supervisor since he doesn't much like me...
Is this on the syllabus? I've not even heard of this before.
0
reply
gethsemane342
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by The West Wing)
Is this on the syllabus? I've not even heard of this before.
It's one of the common law exceptions to the doctrine of privity. It's in all of the textbooks - and it's mentioned in a question on my supervision sheet - so I assumed it was :\ If I'm wrong, I may go and curl up in a corner in despair at my wasted time...
0
reply
Festina lente
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by gethsemane342)
It's one of the common law exceptions to the doctrine of privity. It's in all of the textbooks - and it's mentioned in a question on my supervision sheet - so I assumed it was :\ If I'm wrong, I may go and curl up in a corner in despair at my wasted time...
It definitely exists I have just found a useful couple of sentences in my Trusts textbook with a footnote to cases, if you don't find the answer in Chitty let me know and I will follow up a couple of those
0
reply
The West Wing
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by gethsemane342)
It's one of the common law exceptions to the doctrine of privity. It's in all of the textbooks - and it's mentioned in a question on my supervision sheet - so I assumed it was :\ If I'm wrong, I may go and curl up in a corner in despair at my wasted time...
I think I saw that topic and decided to block its existence out of my mind instead of learning it.
0
reply
jjarvis
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by gethsemane342)
It's one of the common law exceptions to the doctrine of privity. It's in all of the textbooks - and it's mentioned in a question on my supervision sheet - so I assumed it was :\ If I'm wrong, I may go and curl up in a corner in despair at my wasted time...
Definitely on the syllabus--I emailed my supervisor because I didn't understand it AT ALL, and I asked whether it was. Resounding yes. So you've not wasted your itme. Hope Chitty helped!
0
reply
gethsemane342
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by jjarvis)
Definitely on the syllabus--I emailed my supervisor because I didn't understand it AT ALL, and I asked whether it was. Resounding yes. So you've not wasted your itme. Hope Chitty helped!
Thanks - it was quite helpful: may re-read it closer to the exam It didn't answer my question but I got the impression that the answer would be pointless in terms of the exam. I may ask my supervisor anyway, just for the heck of it (maybe if he keeps laughing at me - it'll prove I thought about something anyway)
0
reply
Festina lente
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
I found a great bit in Underhill & Hayton: Law of Trusts and Trustees today (was supposed to be looking up something else but couldn't find it). It's just the first couple of paragraphs under the article heading, if you go to it on Lexis and search for something like derivative actions and beneficiary and trustee it should come up.
0
reply
jjarvis
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by gethsemane342)
Thanks - it was quite helpful: may re-read it closer to the exam It didn't answer my question but I got the impression that the answer would be pointless in terms of the exam. I may ask my supervisor anyway, just for the heck of it (maybe if he keeps laughing at me - it'll prove I thought about something anyway)
Fwiw, he often seems bemused by me and Bill and the arguments we get into in supervisions...
0
reply
gethsemane342
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by jjarvis)
Fwiw, he often seems bemused by me and Bill and the arguments we get into in supervisions...
Oh, has he not split your group up yet then? He clearly likes you all more than us - he got sick of me and someone arguing in Michaelmas and took great pains to ensure the pair of us and the third guy couldn't be in the same supervisions for Lent... I don't think he realised that me and the other person *liked* our arguments and were genuinely trying to stay on topic.

(I also have a suspicion he complained about me to my DoS - which, in complete fairness, could be because I spent our last supervision glowering at him so he wouldn't laugh at me. But still, I'm dreading seeing him again now...)

(Original post by Festina lente)
I found a great bit in Underhill & Hayton: Law of Trusts and Trustees today (was supposed to be looking up something else but couldn't find it). It's just the first couple of paragraphs under the article heading, if you go to it on Lexis and search for something like derivative actions and beneficiary and trustee it should come up.
Thanks. I've actually discovered the answer - apparently I can't read. Another lawyer overheard me talking about my question and told me that I misunderstood "joined" (I thought it meant that C joined B as in joined in with. Didn't realise it meant C joined B as in added B...). After a brief argument, she directed me to some caselaw and now I feel like the world's biggest fool...
0
reply
Festina lente
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by gethsemane342)
Thanks. I've actually discovered the answer - apparently I can't read. Another lawyer overheard me talking about my question and told me that I misunderstood "joined" (I thought it meant that C joined B as in joined in with. Didn't realise it meant C joined B as in added B...). After a brief argument, she directed me to some caselaw and now I feel like the world's biggest fool...
Oh riiiight - it all makes sense now!
Just goes to show that lawyers would be better off if we all wrote in plain English Don't worry I have made far more stupid mistakes than that!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Cranfield University
    Cranfield Forensic MSc Programme Open Day Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • University of the Arts London
    Open day: MA Footwear and MA Fashion Artefact Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • Cardiff Metropolitan University
    Undergraduate Open Day - Llandaff Campus Undergraduate
    Sat, 27 Apr '19

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (446)
37.93%
No - but I will (88)
7.48%
No - I don't want to (80)
6.8%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (562)
47.79%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise