Avraamides v Colwill
Under the 1999 Act the third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, class or description.
Facts
Mr and Mrs Avraamides had a bathroom refurbished by a company that later went into liquidation. The work was defective. Mr Colwill and another person bought the company's business under a contract that stated that they would complete outstanding customer installations and remedial work in a proper and workmanlike manner and pay in the normal course of business for liabilities properly incurred by the company. The customers sued the buyers under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the customers could not enforce the term. Section 1(3) of the 1999 Act requires the third party to be expressly identified in the contract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description. The undertaking to pay liabilities properly incurred by the company did not expressly identify the customers as a class of persons on whom a benefit was to be conferred. The court would not imply words into the contract to create a third party right where the Act requires express identification.
Related cases on privity of contract
- Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd [2001] 1 AC 518
- Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58
- Chudley v Clydesdale Bank plc [2019] EWCA Civ 344, [2020] QB 284
- Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 68
- Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847
- Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468
- Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v Artis (The Laemthong Glory) (No 2) [2005] EWCA Civ 519, [2005] 1 Lloyd's Rep 688
- Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
