Talk:Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

OSCOLA
Can you please change this article to use this citation system? It works better this way, rather than inventing our own ones. Basically, you can drop "p." before page numbers (simpler, right?) and follow the style accurately for the list of reference sources.  Wik idea  21:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure the Harvard system isn't "inventing our own ones". I'm not entirely familiar with the OSCOLA system, so if you'd like to step in? Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would you use the Harvard system for English legislation?  Wik idea  00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because WP:MOS permits it and I'm used to it? Because the debate over citation styles is completely irrelevant? Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Lead
 * 1. "The second rule of the original doctrine of privity" - You should probably capitalize "doctrine of privity" in order to connect it to the previous statement. Use of "original" would not help in the phrase, as it may make a reader think that there are others being discussed by the previous use. By the way, that is a massive sentence. I would make "proposals for reform" the beginning of a new sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. Phrasing - "Nothing more was done until the 1990s, where..." - The word "done" is ambiguous and the use of "where" should be replaced with "when". The use of ", presenting" should be transformed into ", and presented". You should probably mention that the bill was the Act in the article title in some manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. Phrasing - "contracts which benefit..." - "that" would be a stronger use. ", and grants" Should be turned into a new sentence in order to avoid all of the clause clutter. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. Phrasing - "At the same time the Act provides" - At the same time, it provides" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Background
 * 1. Comma use - "and secondly that" Separate "secondly" with commas. You divided off "firstly" correctly. :) Use of "ly" may be a little confusing, since they are two entities. Try "the first" or "the first rule" and "the second rule". Rely on the same comma use. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. Phrasing - "The first rule is not something that is contested" - Contested by who? Try "the first was not contested" to avoid having to explain who would contest it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. Phrasing - "The second rule was not originally held to be valid, .... " - "Originally, the second rule was not held to be valid" and "and, in the 17th century, third". The commas would separate out the parenthetical clause from the noun phrase (so it doesn't read "17th-century third"). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. Clause confusion - ", as shown in " you should separate this as its own sentence. If you want, you could divide the sentence at the "In the 17th century, third...". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5. Clarity - "The first reversal of this was in" - "this" = the law or the previous ruling? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6. Clarity - "This case was quickly reversed," You mean the ruling was? The rest of the sentence repeats the previous sentence. Just end with "This case was quickly reversed in decisions that followed immediately after" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * - Will finish in a little bit. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done initial concerns up to this line. Ironholds (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I intend to pass this but my internet and wiki were out today, and I couldn't access IRC either to talk to you directly. There are some copyediting issues, which I will go over soon, but there is nothing major besides this: "# ^ Cite Error: Invalidtag; no text was provided for refs named jem1." and "# ^ Cite Error: Invalid tag; no text was provided for refs named jem2." There are two references that are tagged to connect to others, but they have no companion. This needs to be fixed. Also, the word "promisee" is redlinked, which makes me think it is a mistake. To give you a taste of what kinds of copyediting issues I'll bring up, here is "The Act made it clear that contracts made".


 * Formation of the Act
 * 1. "The first proposal to reform the doctrine of privity was made in 1937 by the Law Revision Committee in their Sixth Interim Report, which proposed an Act of Parliament to allow third parties to enforce terms of a contract that specifically allowed them to do so." Read that allowed. :) Place a semi-colon after "1937" and remove "by" and ", which". Change the first "to allow" to "that would allow" and the "specifically allowed them to do so" to "that specified that they were allowed" or something similar to remove the constant use of "to".
 * 2. "-" You want an – dash. [
 * 3. Comma after "In 1991".
 * 4. Comma to separate out "and in July 1996" before "in" and after "1996".
 * 5. "and when given its second reading " - "and during its second reading"? Also, place a comma after "and" and after "reading".
 * 6. "It received" ", and it received".


 * Provisions of the Act
 * 1. "act was first published" Comma after "published".
 * 2. "contract, the onus" - The comma is improper. Use a period and begin "The Onus".
 * 3. "has been described as too broad," by what people or groups?
 * 4. "one view" - specify the source.
 * No idea - the source given by the journal article is a Hansard reference not yet online. Ironholds (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5. "an action, and the promisee" Remove comma. "afterwards, the promisee" Add "then" before "the" to complete the "if/then" clause.


 * Scope and implementation of the Act
 * 1. "has been criticised somewhat" - Specify the source.


 * That should be most of it.
 * All points dealt with other than the one I've queried above. Ironholds (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from the review

 * Comment, I'm terribly sorry but this is nowhere near the standard to qualify for a featured article. One problem that FA reviewers will face on highly specialised legal topics is the difficulty to evaluate whether the information is accurate, pertinent or useful. When an article looks good, how do you know it actually is good? The answer is, you need specialists. I'll just say a couple of things. This page cites only one case (Nisshin Shipping) on the Act itself, and doesn't explain it. It doesn't deal with any other cases after the passage of the Act, eg The Laemthong. That is a whopping failure to engage or explain the Act. Furthermore, while the referencing may look impressive, it is not. It is full of pointless information and anecdote. Here's just one example:

The Act applies in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, but not Scotland, which has its own rules on privity and the rights of third parties.[47] The Act came into law on 11 November 1999 when it received the Royal Assent,[2] but the full provisions of the Act did not come into force until May 2000.[54] The act made clear that contracts negotiated during a six-month "twilight period" after the act's passage fell under its provisions if they included language saying that they had been made under the terms of the act.[54]

The Act had various consequences...

This is all entirely useless. That same section then starts talking about the views of the construction industry (as if it matters?) on the Act. ("The act has been criticised somewhat by the construction industry for its refusal to make an exception for complex construction contracts,[25] and for the vagueness of the term "purports to confer a benefit". It is generally accepted, however, that it would be unfair to make an exception for a particular industry,[25] and case law has clarified the meaning of "purports to confer a benefit".[46]")

On that last point, if you look in the article itself - which should be the thing clarifying meanings - for the meaning of "purports to confer a benefit" you find this,

The second situation, that a third party can enforce terms that "purport to confer a benefit on him", has been described by Meryll Dean as too broad, and one view put forward in the parliamentary debates was that it was "un-workable" in situations such as complex construction contracts involving dozens of sub-contractors with chains of contracts among them.[25] This argument, and a proposal to exempt the construction industry from the Act, was rejected by both the Law Commission and Parliament.[25] The phrase "purport to confer a benefit" was originally found in the 1937 Law Commission paper, and was used in the New Zealand Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 before it was adopted for the English Act.[26]

It doesn't tell you anything. But actually, it doesn't matter! There is no problem whatsoever in this phrase. This is just one example about how defective and riddled with mistakes, omissions, exaggeration of some parts, lack of emphasis in others. This article should not have been rated good in the first place. The reference list is adequate, but the page fails draw on those very references, or to grapple with or explain the main issues and functions of the legislation. It certainly does not deal with the details and the difficulties of the legislation. Finally, it does not actually quote any of the provisions. In a short act, this will often be useful for the reader. Again, I'm terribly sorry, but this cannot be endorsed.  Wik idea  14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want to add - because I do not want to hurt anybody's feelings, and because I can see that a substantial amount of effort has been put in - that I am sure the page can be improved. My comments are purely to set out some preliminary problems in the hope that it will encourage some improvement.  Wik idea  15:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ownership tag

 * I've taken down the ownership tag.  Wik idea  14:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the tag, since you don't actually seem to understand what it means. It does not mean "this user owns this article", it means "this user is heavily involved in it, and can be queried should there be questions or amendments". Ironholds (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You know as well as I do that I understand that tag. I disagree - and that's different - that you should be claiming credit on Wikipedia articles in this way. I think that while ostensibly denying ownership, this template in substance asserts it. I also think it's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, which is selflessly and anonymously to create a body of knowledge for everybody. You should realise that if people really do think good work is done they will always be able to find you in the history. So far as this article goes, I don't think you should be claiming that you know-it-all and can help with source verification, etc.  Wik idea  00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So the tag denotes ownership and is a form of bragging, even though it clearly says it isn't, and I can't help with source verification and verification of the information in the article because I wrote it all, and therefore obviously have no clue what things mean. Wait, hangon. Ironholds (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Attention from an expert
The tag remains, unless the page is improved, I'm afraid. We simply cannot mislead readers into thinking that this is a usable resource. Does anyone think this should be reassessed as a good article? Please don't take it personally Ironholds. I know you've put in effort, but you need more attention to detail, doctrine and case law.  Wik idea  15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Were it coming from any other user I wouldn't be taking it personally, no. Ironholds (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikidea, if you have no constructive criticism that can be addressed specifically (and do know that "the sourcing is awful" is NOT an addressable criticism), do refrain from adding tags like this. We have a policy about that. It's called "Do not disrupt the g***amn encyclopedia to make a point". Circéus (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My only point is that this article is not up to scratch in any way. I don't really care what Ironholds wants, and I'm not trying to make a point. As it stands, this article will mislead readers into thinking it is accurate or pertinent. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I'm not sure who you are to be telling me what points I should make.  Wik idea  21:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you have nothing whatsoever useful to say about how to actually improve the article and you are being pointlessly bandying about templates and policies that do not apply. Stop it. Circéus (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Tag removed. BencherliteTalk 21:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be stupid you two. I've got a million ways to improve the article - just one of them is in the comment I left in the review. But ok, perhaps I'm being too rough. I'll be specific. Section 1 is the most important part of the Act. That needs expansion and case law.  Wik idea  23:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the case law point, actually. Can I suggest a similar procedure to what we're doing at Pepper v Hart? Leave a summary of your queries on, say, Talk:Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999/q and I'll address them. A list of relevant cases would also be useful, since the only contract textbook I've got at uni with my (Furmston's 2007 work) is a bit light on the things, although I know Treitel and McKendrick (back in London) both go into more detail. I'm in London tomorrow and on Sunday on my way to and from NC, so I'll try and pick them up and ship them back, addressing your points on maybe Monday morning/evening. Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sandy asked me to take a look at the article. I do see problems, but they are in my view fixable though it will take a bit of rewriting.  I'm a lawyer, and I've got three FA stars for articles in the law field.  Would comments be best here or should I address them on the FAC page?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The FAC is deader than Denning, shove the comments anywhere. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Privity across the world, I found this (Australia) and this (Canada). This, on the other hand, is a much more recent (2007, as far a I can tell) paper on the topic. Still not a lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt since I can't very well judge how useful these articles are (especially as I'm home and can't see the full version, though I can get them at uni).

I said at the FAC I thought the legal citations were maybe a bit much, especially with the repeated links to legal citation. Having reviewed recent legal FAs, it seems clear the general approach is to not cite cases mentioned in the body of the article (except, maybe, for cases not quite notable enough to warrant articles). I'd be in favor of either deleting the articles altogether, or alternatively, moving the citation in a separate notes section titled "case citations" (I can do it without having to add a full header, see for example Otomi language). Circéus (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)