Varying a contract, subcontracting, third party rights and transfers

This subtopic provides an overview of varying contracts, sub-contracting and third party rights. It includes the following Practice Notes and Precedents:

  1. Practice Note: Ireland—How to vary a contract is a ‘how to’ guide on varying commercial contracts which signposts relevant content. It includes a summary of what contract variation is, whether variation is appropriate, the requirements for a valid variation, other legal considerations, and practical points when varying a contract

  2. Practice Note: Ireland—Contracts and third-party rights considers why a third party may wish to rely on a contract to which it is not privy, and whether the common law doctrine of privity contract may be avoided by recognising instead a collateral agreement, a group contract, or an agency scenario on the given facts. It also considers when a third party can make a claim under an insurance contract or consumer legislation

  3. Practice Note: Ireland—Third party rights—the common law doctrine of privity of contract discusses the common law doctrine of privity of contract, the exceptions to it, how the doctrine affects enforcing a contract against a third party and what happens

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Ireland - Commercial News

General Court dismisses Amazon’s Challenge to VLOP designation (Amazon EU v Commission)

EU Law analysis: In its judgment of 19 November 2025 in Case T-367/23, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Amazon EU Sàrl (Amazon) against its classification by the European Commission (Commission) as a so-called ‘Very Large Online Platform’ (VLOP) under Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (EU Digital Services Act or EU DSA). Notably, Amazon does not call into question the correctness of the figure of 45 million monthly active users within the EU to qualify as a VLOP. The meeting of this threshold is out of dispute. Rather, Amazon takes the position that Article 33(1) DSA is unlawful in so far as that provision makes certain marketplaces subject to the obligations laid down in Articles 34 to 43 DSA. In particular, Amazon puts forward an infringement of the freedom to conduct its business, its right to property, the principle of equal treatment, the freedom of expression and of information and the protection of confidential information. All these rights are enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). The General Court considered all these rights on an individual basis, confirmed for most of them an interference, but at the same time emphasized that none of these rights is of absolute character. The court therefore engaged in analysing whether the specific interference could be justified. Ultimately, the judges reached the conclusion that in the case of Amazon the obligations imposed by the EU DSA are within proportion and therefore justifiable. Written by Dr Nils Rauer MJI, partner, Global Co-Lead Artificial Intelligence & head of German Intellectual Property at Pinsent Masons.

View Ireland - Commercial by content type :

Popular documents