Talk:Privity in English law

Nice work
Nice work on this so far. Can you incorporate the cases I've listed in some way? I think it'd be good to have part on contract and tort. Also there's those complicated exclusion clause transfer cases, which I think need to be explained well. And I think that privity is definitely the same thing as consideration (or an inseparable part of the doctrine). What do you think?  Wik idea  13:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that my opinion doesn't matter, it's down to the sources and what they say. I've got some more stuff to work in, and I'll try and put your cases in as well when I've got a mo (I'm actually working a breach of contract case at work, ironically, which is cutting into my time to write about contract). Ironholds (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well sure it wouldn't change the way you wrote, I'd hope. But I'm still interested to know what you think (not that you have to have a view!). Consideration must move from the promisee seems to be the rule in Tweddle. It doesn't make sense to have a doctrine of consideration, of course, if you can enforce a bargain to which you've brought nothing of economic value yourself. Then, I wonder, maybe the doctrine of consideration itself is a bad bargain...  Wik idea  23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of people see consideration as a bad element of contract law, yes. I'd say privity probably is a sub-element of consideration - most case law has dealt with it on those grounds (beswick, for example - she was allowed to enforce it as the executrix because she was acting as the agent of someone who had provided consideration). Ironholds (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)