Privity and Law of Contract

5771 WordsJun 11, 201124 Pages
Contents QUESTION -1 3 The Doctrine of Privity 3 The meaning, history and evolution of the doctrine 3 Relationship between privity and consideration 4 Privity under different laws 5 PRIVITY AND THE LAW OF AGENCY 5 Privity and Agency by Estoppels or Holding out 6 Privity when Sub-agents or Substitute agents are appointed 6 PRIVITY AND THE LAW OF PARTNERSHIP 7 Privity and the act of civil and criminal liability of partners 8 Privity and the liability for holding out 8 PRIVITY AND THE LAW ON SALES OF GOODS 9 Contracts Concerning Land 10 PRIVITY AND THE LAW ON HIRE PURCHASE 10 QUESTION 2 11 Analysis of the case to establish formation of contract 12 Was Mike obligated to sell furniture to Nilam 13 Nilma’s Rights and remedies…show more content…
This fact is established in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. Selfridge & Co. Ltd. (1915) where Dunlop sold its tires to a whole seller on condition that it should not be sold below a certain price. On that condition whole seller sold them to retailers and Selfrisge & Co. Ltd was one such a retailer who sold below the specified price. There appeared to be no privity of contract between Dunlop and Selfridge. The court also held that consideration does not flow from Dunlop to Selfridge thus it was not possible for Dunlop to sue Selfidge. However, unlike the English law, there is a deviation in who can give consideration in the Malaysian Law. Under the Malaysian Contracts Act 1950, consideration for the contract need not necessarily come from the promisee. But still the promisee can enforce the contract even if he has not personally provided any consideration provided that some other person has given the consideration. This is established in the case of Venkata Chinnaya v.Verikatara’ma’ya (1881) I.L.R. 4 Mad.137. In this case a sister who agreed to pay an annuity of Rs.653 to her brother who provided no consideration for the promise. On the same day, their mother gave the sister some land on condition that the sister pay annuity to her brother. Later the sister failed to pay the annuity. The court held that the sister was liable to pay the brothers even though no consideration was given by him. But the consideration from their mother was
Open Document