Third Party Contract in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others ; St Martins Property Corporation Ltd and Another v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd (formerly Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons Ltd)
    • House of Lords
    • 22 Jul 1993

    The reason for including the contractual prohibition viewed from the contractor's point of view must be that the contractor wishes to ensure that he deals, and deals only, with the particular employer with whom he has chosen to enter into a contract. Building contracts are pregnant with disputes: some employers are much more reasonable than others in dealing with such disputes.

    In such a case, it seems to me proper, as in the case of the carriage of goods by land, to treat the parties as having entered into the contract on the footing that Corporation would be entitled to enforce contractual rights for the benefit of those who suffered from defective performance but who, under the terms of the contract, could not acquire any right to hold McAlpine liable for breach.

  • Don King Productions Inc. v Warren
    • Court of Appeal
    • 21 Dic 1998

    The reason is quite simply that partnership property within s.20 Partnership Act 1890 includes that to which a partner is entitled and which all the partners expressly or by implication agree should, as between themselves, be treated as partnership property. It is immaterial, as between the partners, whether it can be assigned by the partner in whose name it stands to the partners jointly.

    I agree with the judge that Re Turcan (1888) 40 Ch.D.5 at p. 10 shows clearly that the court will protect the interests of those contractually entitled to have the benefit of an inalienable asset before the fruits of the asset have been realised. In that case, as the House of Lords considered in Linden Gardens Ltd v Lenesta Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85, 106, the court gave effect to the intention of the parties by means of a declaration of trust.

  • Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 22 Jun 1967

    It is express when it is given by express words, such as when a board of directors pass a resolution which authorises two of their number to sign cheques. It is implied when it is inferred from the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the cape, such as when the board of directors appoint one of their number to be managing director. They thereby impliedly authorise him to do all such things as fall within the usual scope of that office.

  • Nisshin Shipping Company Ltd v Cleaves & Company Ltd
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 07 Nov 2003

    The third party never was expressed to be a party to the arbitration agreement but, in view of the fact that he has in effect become a statutory assignee of the promisee's right of action against the promisor and because, by reason of the underlying policy of the 1999 Act expressed in section 1(4) he is confined to the means of enforcement provided by the contract to the promisee, namely arbitration, he is to be treated as standing in the shoes of that promisee for the purpose only of the enforcement of the substantive term.

  • Warner Bros. Records Inc. v Rollgreen Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 20 Dic 1974

    It seems to me that that principle applies, not only to a debt but also to an option. The grantorcannot be expected to act upon a letter (purporting to exercise the option) which comes out of the blue from some one or other of which heknows nothing. He must be told that it comes from an assignee who has taken an assignment. Nothing is therefore necessary to perfect the right of the assignee to exercise the option.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results