Although Ann is directly affected, she cannot sue John to fix the leak because she does not have a contract with John. However, she could sue Jane because Jane, as the owner, is obliged to repair the leak in accordance with her contract. The law allows for full compliance with the objective of the parties. In Beswick v. Beswick, the agreement provided that Peter Beswick would transfer his business to his nephew in exchange for the nephew`s job for the rest of his life and then pay a weekly pension to Mrs. Beswick. Since the latter provision benefited a person who was not a party to the contract, the nephew did not believe that it was enforceable and therefore did not implement it by paying only a payment of the agreed weekly amount. But the only reason Mr Beswick signed a contract with his nephew was for Mrs Beswick`s benefit. By law, Ms.
Beswick would be able to enforce the performance of the contract in her own law. Therefore, the law realizes the intentions of the parties. Attempts have been made to circumvent the doctrine by involving trusts (with varying degrees of success), constructing the Law of Property Act 1925, at p. 56(1), reading the words “other property” than the inclusion of contractual rights, and applying the concept of restrictive covenants to property other than immovable property (to no avail). Amanda has a one-year lease for her apartment in the city. She has made arrangements to go to South America as an exchange student for six months and wants to sublet her apartment while she is away. With permission from her landlord Nick, Amanda rents her apartment to Suzanne with a six-month written agreement. Amanda remains responsible for paying the rent to her landlord as she retains privileges under her original lease. If Abigail filed a civil lawsuit against Max and asked the judge to order her to repair or replace the air conditioner as agreed, her case would likely be dismissed. This is because Max does not have a contract with Abigail, which means that there are no privileges between Max and Abigail and therefore Abigail cannot sue him for fulfilling his obligations under the real estate sales contract.
There are a few exceptions to the privacy rule, largely due to court decisions. Here are some places where the confidentiality of the contract does not apply: Privity becomes important when a tenant decides to assign his lease to a third party. Unless the transferee agrees to take over the lease, there is no confidentiality between the landlord and the transferee. As a result, neither of them can assert the lease against the other. In assignment situations, the landlord usually accepts the assignment and privacy is not an issue. However, there are situations in which the landlord is not aware of the assignment and the transferee does not take over the lease. Aside from the fact that this is usually a default under the lease, there is no lien between the landlord and the new “tenant” and neither of them can enforce the terms of the lease against the other. Six months into the one-year lease, April threw a big party and their guests caused $10,000 in damage to the unit.
Burt sent Jessica the bill for damages, and in response, Jessica demanded payment starting in April. Unfortunately, April left the apartment and avoided Jessica`s attempts to recover the damage and unpaid rent. Since Jessica is the original tenant named in the lease, she is guilty of the damage to the unit and is responsible for the rents due and the performance of all the obligations set out in the original lease. April has no privilege with Burt; Therefore, Jessica Burt has to pay for the damages or he can take legal action against her. However, she is not defenseless as she can sue April because April has privileges with Jessica. For example, the confidentiality of the contract allows one party to enforce the promises of the other party. Let`s say Part A sells a property to Part B. Parts A and B are at the forefront and each can enforce the other party`s promises contained in the contract. However, the tenant of Part B is not close to Part A and therefore does not have the right to enforce the terms of the contract between Party A and Party B against Party A. Thus, if Party A has not made the repairs required in its contract with Party B, the tenant cannot sue Party A for not doing so. There is no privacy between Part A and the tenant.
However, Party B has the right to enforce Part A`s promise to make repairs. However, Abigail can sue her landlord John to force him to fulfill his obligations under his lease. If John wants to enforce his contract with Max, he must sue Max himself. Although damages are the usual remedy in the event of breach of a contract in favour of a third party, a specific benefit may be awarded in the event of insufficient compensation (Beswick v. Beswick  AC 59). As the law evolves, the courts may further infringe on the principle of contract confidentiality. However, if you know the principle, you can be useful for preparing contracts or awarding contracts to others. If a third party receives a benefit from a contract, he does not have the right to bring an action against the contracting parties beyond his claim to a service.
For example, when a manufacturer sells a product to a distributor and the retailer sells the product to a retailer. The retailer then sells the product to a consumer. There is no right to confidentiality between the manufacturer and the consumer. However, privacy has proven to be problematic; As a result, many exceptions are now accepted. For example, under privacy doctrine, the beneficiary of a life insurance policy would not be entitled to perform the contract because he was not a party and the signer died. As would be unfair, liability insurance contracts that allow third parties to assert policy claims made in their favor are one of the exceptions to the doctrine of privacy protection. If a tenant subleases a leased property, whether all or only part of it, the original tenant remains responsible for its contract with the original landlord and is therefore responsible for paying the rent to the landlord and fulfilling all other obligations under that lease. This is true even if he no longer has a right of ownership or the right to be there. .