The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999) provides a statutory exception to the common law doctrine of privity of contract. This provides, in specified circumstances, for third parties to enforce a benefit conferred on them under a contract to which they are not themselves a party. For details of C(RTP)A 1999 and its application, see Practice Note: Third party rights—the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. C(RTP)A 1999 makes no express provision as to whether a third party may assign rights conferred on it under the Act to a fourth party. We are not aware of any specific decision which covers this question. However, the Law Commission, in its 1996 report Privity of contract: Contracts for the benefit of third

Local Government analysis: An interesting case involving European Services/Works contract definitions, EU/UK procurement rules, and potential conflicts of interest involving a contract claim of over £1.3m. Parts only of the JR challenge grounds were permitted to proceed to a full hearing, so the outcome is not yet conclusive, but ‘arguable’ at this permissions stage. This is a case to watch, in the future, especially in terms of how parties interpret the Services/Works contract definitions, the interplay of EU procurement legislation and the transmission of it into domestic UK legislation, with ‘how to avoid’ potential conflicts of interest between the various contracting parties and independent consultant interests. Written by Dr Mirza Ahmad LLD (Hon), barrister at St Philips Chambers.

‘Conformance’ to a specification in a software agreement is often dependent upon several elements of the contract working together towards their natural conclusion, including: the clarity of the specification detailed in the contract, the acceptance testing procedure which the developed software is to be tested against, permitted tolerance levels, contractual remedies for a non-conformance and any contractual provisions as to how a dispute related to conformity is to be determined. Our precedent: Software development agreement contains examples of how the developed software is tested for conformance against specification.

What is a claim for misrepresentation? A claim for misrepresentation arises where one party to a contract (the representor) made an untrue statement that induced the other party (the representee) to enter into the contract. What are the types of misrepresentation? The untrue statement may have been made: • fraudulently • negligently • innocently For further guidance on the different types of misrepresentation, see Practice Note: Misrepresentation—falsity (fraudulent, innocent or negligent misrepresentation). What remedies are available for actionable misrepresentations? Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (MA 1967) is concerned with the availability of damages as a remedy in misrepresentation claims. It provides

One of the conditions regulating settlement agreements is that the agreement must be in writing. For further information, see Practice Note: Settlement agreements in employment—legal requirements. ‘Writing’ includes typing, printing, lithography, photography and other modes of representing or reproducing words in a visible form. There is no specific requirement, eg in section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as to signature. Contract law principles provide that for a contract to exist, four key elements must be present: • an offer must have been made • that offer must have been accepted • valuable consideration must be given for the promises

Practice Note: Exclusion and limitation of liability describes the law and practice of limitation of liability in both business and consumer contracts. It covers the common law and the statutory provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977) and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) in the context of limitation of liability. It also contains practical guidance on structuring and negotiating a standard limitation of liability clause in a commercial contract. You may find useful the following blog post from the PSL Commercial blog: Running scared from disclaimers. This considers

The limitation period for a Data Protection Act 1998 or misuse of private information compensation claim which includes a claim in respect of psychiatric injury is three years. The answer to this question is derived directly from the terms of section 11(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), which provides as follows: ‘This section applies to any action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of provision made by or under a statute or independently of any contract or any such provision) where the damages claimed by the plaintiff for the negligence,

On the information you have provided (assuming that this dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015)) and on the basis that the seller sold the horse as a ‘trader’ and the purchaser purchased as a consumer, then CRA 2015 would apply to this contract for the sale of the horse and would imply into the contract for sale specific terms to which the goods (in this case, the horse) sold must comply. CRA 2015 implies certain terms into sales contracts between a business and

This question gives rise to two considerations: • possible protection against unlawful deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), and • the parties' rights under the contract of employment An employer may not make a deduction from the wages of any worker employed by him, or receive a payment from such a worker, unless: • it is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statutory provision or any relevant provision of the worker's contract, or • the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to

The articles of association constitute a contract between the members and the company (Companies Act 2006, s 33(1)), not the directors, so it is unlikely that an action could be brought directly against a director by the other directors for breach of the articles. However, it might be that the director in question is also a shareholder, in which case the other members and/or the company (or directors on behalf of the company) might be able to bring an action against that shareholder/director for breach of contract (ie the articles). Further detail

[Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1:] 1 The Claimant has been employed by the Respondent as an [enter job title, eg administrative assistant] since [insert date], when she entered into a fixed-term contract for [insert length of term or the basis on which the contract will terminate]. 2 On or about [insert date], the Claimant became aware that permanent employees in her team were receiving ‘late duty allowances’ for hours worked after 6pm. The Claimant has never received such an allowance and when she raised the matter with her manager he told her she was not entitled to the allowance because she did not have a

This Practice Note identifies the key commercial, political and contractual issues that need to be considered when dealing with construction projects outside the UK, including language issues, local customs, the use of standard forms, funding, shipping/transport, force majeure issues, insurances, law of the jurisdiction and method of dispute resolution. Location of project—practical considerations When an organisation or individual is looking to undertake a construction project in a territory other than its home market, it should ensure it is fully aware of the practical considerations that could arise as a result of the location of the project. Parties need to be aware that positions or behaviour considered as market standard in their domestic market may be different in another jurisdiction. In particular, there may be: • significant differences in contracting practice between different areas. For example: ◦ contracts in civil code jurisdictions are sometimes shorter than those in common law jurisdictions, as the code will impose key provisions into contracts and onto the parties to them ◦ some jurisdictions place significant restrictions on the use or certainty