Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999: Difference between revisions

[[File:Third man.jpg|450px|thumb|center|Why the hostility towards third parties, [[counsellor]]? What did they ever to do you?]]

{{subtable|'''Sample [[CRTPA]] clause''', if you ''really'' must:<br>“No-one who is not a party to this agreement has any rights under the [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] to enforce any of its terms.”}}}}It is now lost in the mists of history, but once upon a time there must have been a reason why lawyers of the international capital markets were so collectively hostile to the [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]], a small piece of well-intended legislation which allowed contractual parties to agree that persons benefiting from their contract, but who were not parties to it (and thus did not have the necessary “[[privity of contract]]” required by the [[common law]] to take action under it), might, upon a breach, be allowed to sue the breaching party directly to recover their loss.

Another place where CRTPA remains unloved is in the terms and conditions of [[Bearer security|bearer debt securities]]. This seems especially strange: since a bearer note is unilateral and, by its very terms, intended to benefit whomsoever in the world should for the time being have possession of it, exactly whom is one trying to exclude with this [[boilerplate]]? And how — presuming that person did not have possession of it (if she did, she would not be a third party) — would such a person formulate a claim that the issuer intended to benefit her?

For now, the [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] remains unwanted. Shunned. Unloved; garnering only negative notice in the run-off [[boilerplate]] of our modern contractual frameworks. Perhaps it is time for a rethink?

{{sa}}

*[[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 - GMSLA Provision]]

*[[...and any of its Affiliates and any of its, or their, directors, officers, employees, contractors or professional advisers]]