Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
I am having difficulty understanding the application of s1(1)(b) s1(2) + s(3) of C(RTP)A1999.
So my question is:
if under s1(1)(b) it is not necessary to show under s1(2) that the term positively identified the third party to be able to enforce his rights under it.
(Nisshin Shipping v Clunis)
Then why does it say in s3 that the party must be identified by name/class etc?
So my question is:
if under s1(1)(b) it is not necessary to show under s1(2) that the term positively identified the third party to be able to enforce his rights under it.
(Nisshin Shipping v Clunis)
Then why does it say in s3 that the party must be identified by name/class etc?
Original post by ALC1989
I am having difficulty understanding the application of s1(1)(b) s1(2) + s(3) of C(RTP)A1999.
So my question is:
if under s1(1)(b) it is not necessary to show under s1(2) that the term positively identified the third party to be able to enforce his rights under it.
(Nisshin Shipping v Clunis)
Then why does it say in s3 that the party must be identified by name/class etc?
So my question is:
if under s1(1)(b) it is not necessary to show under s1(2) that the term positively identified the third party to be able to enforce his rights under it.
(Nisshin Shipping v Clunis)
Then why does it say in s3 that the party must be identified by name/class etc?
Perhaps you have misunderstood what Nisshin Shipping v Cleaves says about CRTPA 1999?
The contract was made between Ifchor and Nisshin. Here is the relevant clause:
"A commission of 2 per cent for equal division is payable by the vessel and owners to Messrs Ifchor SA Lausanne and Messrs Cleaves and Company Ltd, London on hire earned and paid under this Charter, and also upon any continuation or extension of this charter".
So s 1(3) CRTPA 1999 does not come into it. Cleaves were named. The issue before the court was how s 1(2) worked. Nisshin shipping argued, 'Cleaves might be named in the contract but there is no suggestion that they have any right to enforce it, so s 1(2) applies and they can't. Cleaves argued, 'we are a named third party who has a benefit conferred on them by a clause of the contract. There is a presumption that we can enforce it unless there is something in the contract to suggest that we cannot. Cleaves won.
Therefore the position is (1) the third party must be identified in the contract. If they are not then there cannot ever be any rights under CRTPA 1999; (2) the contract does not need to expressly identify those third parties that can enforce the contract - there is a presumption that all of the identified and benefited third parties can.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Is it illegal to sign a contract with an apprenticeship then go back on it?
- Wrong A-Level grade on CV (ADVICE)
- I just quit McDonalds without a notice
- Is it time for change - is the status quo about to end challenged?
- Will my parents be informed about self-harm if I'm in sixth form?
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- About RAAC crisis
- Background check, wrong Grade on CV?
- Unlocked/locked phone before selling
- GAMSAT 2024 is online
- Driving supervisor
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3A (9PL0 3A) 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Moot Problem
- Mooting Problem
- Moot
- Private uni accommodation problem
- Met police day 1. Assessment
- Moot Problem
- LNAT Section B
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
