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

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (view source)

Revision as of 15:26, 12 July 2019

85 bytes added ,  12 July 2019
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|Negotiation|}}It is now lost in the mists of time, but once upon a time there must have been a reason why 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 counterparties to agree to grant a right to sue under a contract upon persons who otherwise would not have direct [[privity of contract|privity]] to do so.
{{a|negotiation|}}It is now lost in the mists of time, but once upon a time there must have been a reason why 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 counterparties to agree to grant a right to sue under a contract upon persons benefiting from that contract but not party to it, who otherwise would not have direct [[privity of contract|privity]] to do so.


Most likely the lawyer’s instinctive, huffy, reactionary petulance — which (while poor) was understandable in 1999 but, ladies and gentlemen, come on: haven't we grown out of that now?
Most likely, simply the lawyer’s instinctive, huffy, reactionary petulance — perhaps understandable in 1999 but, ladies and gentlemen, come on: haven't we grown out of that now?


Nonetheless, the great canon of capital markets [[boilerplate]] is shot through with hostility to this poor act. There's Para 27.10 of the {{gmsla}} for example: the very last paragraph, when all else is said and done, they knife the poor [[CRTPA]] just when, perhaps, it thought it had got away with it.
Nonetheless, the great canon of capital markets [[boilerplate]] is shot through with hostility to this poor act. There's Para 27.10 of the {{gmsla}} for example: the very last paragraph, when all else is said and done, they knife the poor [[CRTPA]] just when, perhaps, it thought it had got away with it.
Line 7: Line 7:
It seems to [[Jolly Contrarian|your correspondent]] the [[CRTPA]] has its potential uses. To a careful user of the English language<ref>And is there a more careful one than a member of the worshipful roll of solicitors?</ref>, really doesn't present much risk. And there are cases where it might be interesting:
It seems to [[Jolly Contrarian|your correspondent]] the [[CRTPA]] has its potential uses. To a careful user of the English language<ref>And is there a more careful one than a member of the worshipful roll of solicitors?</ref>, really doesn't present much risk. And there are cases where it might be interesting:
*{{casenote|Secure Capital|Credit Suisse}} [2017] EWCA Civ 1486: A [[bearer security]] held as a global note by a [[common depositary]] on behalf of clearing systems which has a CRTPA provision excludes the right of the end noteholder (in the clearing systems) to sue the issuer. Held: end noteholder could not pursue the issuer directly.
*{{casenote|Secure Capital|Credit Suisse}} [2017] EWCA Civ 1486: A [[bearer security]] held as a global note by a [[common depositary]] on behalf of clearing systems which has a CRTPA provision excludes the right of the end noteholder (in the clearing systems) to sue the issuer. Held: end noteholder could not pursue the issuer directly.
 
*{{casenote|Chudley|Clydesdale Bank plc}}


{{seealso}}
{{seealso}}
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/31725"

Navigation menu