Privity of Contract Cases in Tanzania

Contract confidentiality is a concept that stipulates that contracts must not transfer rights or obligations to bodies other than those that are contracting parties. 3 min read With regard to Article 26, the defendants argued that the High Court had correctly held that the Tanzanian courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the applicant`s application. The respondents submitted that the parties were free to choose the tribunal to which a dispute concerning the implementation of the provisions of their contract could be submitted. The only limitation is that the chosen court must have jurisdiction to hear the action. Prior to 1861, there were decisions in English law that allowed the provisions of a contract to be enforced by persons who were not involved in it, usually relatives of a promisor, and decisions that did not allow the rights of third parties. [1] [2] The doctrine of privacy arose in parallel with the doctrine of consideration, whose rules state that consideration must deviate from the promise, that is, if nothing is given for the promise to give something in return, that promise is legally binding only if it is promised as an act. In 1833, there was Price v. Easton, where a contract for the execution of works was concluded against payment to a third party. When the third tried to demand payment, he was considered not to be aware of the contract, and his request therefore failed.

This was fully related to the doctrine of consideration and, as such, established with the more famous case of Tweddle v. Atkinson. In this case, the plaintiff could not sue the executor of his father-in-law`s will, who had promised the plaintiff`s father payment for the plaintiff because he had not provided anything in exchange for the contract. Novation is a way to circumvent the doctrine of contract confidentiality. In addition, novation requires the consent of all parties and consideration (since a new contract is created) for it to be valid. Article 62 of the Act recognizes novation, which provides that if the parties to a contract agree to replace a new contract for it or to cancel or modify it, the original contract does not have to be performed. This means that once the initial contract is correctly/correctly concluded, it does not need to be performed by the other parties, i.e. the new contract comes into force. New Zealand has enacted the Deprivation of Contracts Act 1982, which allows third parties to sue if they are sufficiently identified as beneficiaries by the contract, and in the contract, which is express or implied, they should be able to assert that benefit. An example of a case in which “sufficient identification” is not made is that of Field v. Fitton (1988). This usually covers changes or additions to what the parties to a written contract have agreed.

An act of modification does not replace or reproduce the existing contract, but modifies a part of it as agreed by the parties. Attempts have been made to circumvent the doctrine by involving trusts (with varying degrees of success), constructing the Property Act of 1925, at p. 56(1), reading the words “other property” to include contractual rights, and applying the concept of restrictive agreements to property other than real property (to no avail). A properly worded written contract usually contains a clause that specifies how that contract may be amended, modified, modified or amended. It is therefore of the utmost importance to examine and understand the clause(s) of a contract that set out the terms and/or manner in which they may be amended, modified, modified or amended. It is equally important to take into account any important legislation and/or restrictions that affect how amendments, modifications and general amendments to contracts can be made. On the basis of the definition interpreted above, the Court agreed with the defendant`s argument that the bill of lading is in fact a contract between a shipowner and a consignor of goods setting out the conditions of carriage of the consignor`s goods. In such a contract, there is no quid pro quo, there is nothing that John returns in exchange for Andrew`s payments. If Andrew defaults on his payments and John sues him for breach of contract, the courts will likely not enforce the contract. Although the contract conforms to the concept of privity, it does not contain any consideration. Parties to a written contract can often make several changes or modifications to a contract over time. Instead of having multiple acts/modification agreements that record all these changes, the parties can choose to group all the changes into a single document, i.e.

an amendment and reformulation document. As the name suggests, an amendment and reformulation document usually modifies the underlying contract and repeats it at the same time (repeats what has not been modified). This means that the underlying contract is reproduced taking into account the changes that have been made to it. It is trivial to say that the award of damages for a claim for breach is intended to compensate the injured party; However, damages are generally intended to put a plaintiff in the situation in which he would have found himself if the offence had not occurred. In addition, the burden of proof in civil proceedings generally lies with the plaintiff to prove the damage suffered. In Australia, it has been decided that third party beneficiaries may honour a promise made in their favour in an insurance contract to which they are not parties (Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v. McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107). [3] It is important to note that the Trident decision did not have a clear connection and did not create a general exception to the doctrine of privacy protection in Australia. Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia have adopted all legal provisions that allow third party beneficiaries to perform contracts and have restricted the parties` ability to amend the contract after the third party has relied on it.

In addition, section 48 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) allows third party beneficiaries to enforce insurance contracts. If a third party receives a benefit from a contract, he does not have the right to bring an action against the contracting parties beyond his claim for a benefit. .