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

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

561 bytes added , 19 April 2022

no edit summary

82,459

edits

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 *{{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}} — a classic case where the [[CRTPA]] delivers a sound result where the [[common law]] of {{t|contract}} fails to.
+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?