RESEARCH PROJECT

CONTRACTS

TOPIC

PRIVITY OF CONTRACT AND CONSIDERATION

NAME OF THE FACULTY

B.V.S SUNITA

NAME OF THE STUDENT

PRANAY BHARDWAJ
ROLL NUMBER-2019LLB116
SEMESTER-02

ABSTRACT
.The main principle highlighted by this concept of Privity of Contract is regarding the rights of third parties
in a contract. Thought the position in various countries is now similar, if not the same, it was not the same
when the rule came into being. The most important questions to be considered were whether a third party
could acquire rights, or incur obligations, to a contract to which he or she is not a party?

These questions were highly prevalent in England from 17 th to 20th century. Under Common Law, the
answer to these questions was no. It was developed by the end of 19 th century that third parties were
necessarily strangers to contract and hence could neither acquire the rights nor incur obligations upon any
party to a contract to which they themselves were not a party. “The doctrine of privity means that a contract
cannot, as a general rule, confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person except the parties
to it.”[ii]

The student in this study hence tries to establish how the above mentioned position was achieved and the
conditions and the scenario that paved the path for the current position of the third parties, especially after
the Rights of Third Parties Act of 1999.

After establishing the position in England, the student tries to discuss the position of the concept of Privity,
in detail, in the Country of India, mostly with the help of landmark case laws, changing the course of the
rule despite of the very high influence of the English Laws and cultures on the Indian laws. Then, the
student tries to look into the position held by this concept in other major countries of the world.
 SYNOPSIS
INTRODUCTION-

The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer
rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The
premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case
of breach. The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were
affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third
parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement
is proved. This paper analyses the evolution of the doctrine of privity, taking into consideration the law in
various countries, for largely focusing on England and India.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS-

1.Whether the third party can sue for the breach of contract.

2.Whether there is any exception to the rule of privity of contract and consideration.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY-

The scope of the research is limited to only to the study of privity of contract and consideration only; when
you call a contact that it is a privity of contract and consideration.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY-

The researcher has applied doctrinal method of research.

TYPES OF RESEARCH-

The researcher has used explanatory, analytical and historical method of research.

HYPOTHESIS-

1. The contract is said to be a privity contract when a third party to a contract wants to sue.

2. That only parties to a contract are entitled to sue in case of breach of contract.

3. There are certain exceptions to the rule of privity of contract.

LITERATURE REVIEW-
The researcher has taken information from books, journals, newspaper articles and various online sources.

CHAPTERISATION-

1.Introduction

2.Definition of frustration of contract

3.Elements of doctrine of frustration

4.Effects of frustration

5. History of doctrine of frustration

6.Doctrine of frustration under Indian contracts act.

7. Present day concept of doctrine of frustration

8. Conclusion and recommendation