Privity of contract: Difference between revisions

Privity of contract (view source)

Revision as of 19:54, 3 January 2022

172 bytes added , 3 January 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,882

edits

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 ::—BBC news}}
-We make no remarks, and cast no aspersions, but note only that this release, if enforceable, would be binding against Roberts by Epstein and arguably Epstein’s estate, but not, directly, by Andrew, as he has no contractual “privity”. He provided no consideration for Roberts’ agreement. It may not strike out the tort claim itself, but it may be interesting evidence when assessing the quantum of Roberts’ damages claim, though, in that (again, making no statement about the merits or morality of the situation) it indicates Roberts accepted, and therefore agrees, that $500,000 fully compensated her for her grievance and, therefore, she has not suffered a loss at any other person’s hands.
+We make no remarks, and cast no aspersions, but note only that this release, if enforceable, would be binding against Roberts by Epstein and arguably Epstein’s estate, but not, directly, by Andrew, as he has no contractual “privity”, as he was not himself party to the settlement, provided no consideration for it, and there is no equivalent in the US to the [[CRTPA]].
+Andrew may not be able to strike out the tort claim himself — Epstein’s estate may do so on his behalf, but would he really want to go there? — but it may be interesting evidence when assessing the quantum of Roberts’ damages claim: (again, making no statement about the merits or morality of the situation) it indicates Roberts accepted, and therefore agrees, that $500,000 fully compensated her for her grievance and, therefore, she has not suffered a loss at any other person’s hands.
 {{sa}}