privity

The original contracting parties no longer have privity with each other.

The case turned on the existence of any exceptions to privity.

Two answers have been made to the privity of contract objection.

It seems to be in line with the "privity of contract" doctrine.

There is no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the consumer.

It stands as an example of the flexible approach to privity under the earlier common law.

Trusts have been used as a way around the original doctrine of privity.

Thomas used this as a reason to create an exception to the "privity" rule.

The traditional view is that privity of estate requires a legal lease.

This indicates the continued relevance of privity in employment cases.

Such a move would also dispense with the need for the common law doctrine of privity.

Horizontal privity arises when the benefits from a contract are to be given to a third party.

First, the doctrine of privity requires that only a party to a contract can sue.

Their Bond, if at all signed, must be signed without his privity.

The courts however decided that there was no privity of contract between manufacturer and consumer.

There must be horizontal privity between the original parties.

This method is very liberal and broad in terms of scope, unlike the privity approach.

This doctrine extends to those in "privity" with the assignor.

The term can also be used when a relative or party in privity brings suit on another person's behalf.

It has been argued that privity is not even a distinct doctrine, but rather simply part of consideration.

General consensus, however, is that privity is distinct from consideration.

Privity of Contract played a key role in the development of negligence as well.

This concept is known as privity, a requirement for tacking under some statutes.

However, in general, the assignee has privity of estate with a lessor.

Opponents question the seriousness of the privity problem.