Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:12, 13 March 2010.

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

 * Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the requisite standards. I know that one section is referenced by primary sources; there are no secondary sources available for it, since academics tend not to dedicate much time to what an act tweaks around in the miscellaneous provisions. Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. No dab links, no dead external links. Have asked Eubulides what to do with the alt text for the infobox image (which is in a template). Ucucha 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion about pagination for references moved to talk since now solved (Circéus (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Comment: the article should discuss the bill's progress through Parliament in a bit more detail. Was there any opposition to the bill? Parliamentary debate? Everyking (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No significant amendments, and it had (as far as I can tell) cross-party approval, similar to the OLAs. Ironholds (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if it had cross-party approval, let's report that. Everyking (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This concern was never addressed. I don't see how we can have a featured article on a piece of legislation that fails to even mention the position the political parties took on the legislation. Everyking (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just FYI I intend to give it a better readthrough likely tomorrow. I do have a concern that the numerous case citations are probably somewhat superfluous. I'll try to better articulate my thoughts on the issue when I get 'round to writing a more detailed commentary. Circéus (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Content moved to talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

Oppose prose needs work, several questionable statements, as follows:


 * Lede: Generally. ledes are three or four paragraphs.  It's not somthing I insist on, but in this case, the first, long paragraph is rather tangled.  I would suggest splitting it into two paragraphs.


 * The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (1990 c. 31) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that significantly reformed the common law Doctrine of Privity, overruling the longstanding doctrine that a third party could not sue to enforce a contract if he was not a party to the contract. Over the centuries, that second rule of the Doctrine of Privity had been widely criticised by lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary.


 * Proposals for reform via an Act of Parliament were first made in 1937 by the Law Revision Committee in their Sixth Interim Report. No further action was taken by the government until the 1990s, when the Law Commission proposed a new draft bill in 1991, and presented their final report in 1996. The bill was introduced to the House of Lords in December 1998, and moved to the House of Commons on 14 June 1999. It received the Royal Assent on 11 November 1999, coming into force immediately as the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.


 * Background section: A lot of fairly unclear language in here.  "was not contested"?  Was there a dispute?  Obviously you mean that there was no movement to change it, no criticism, and you should find better language to convey that point.


 * Citations: Perhaps you could put those in the footnotes?  Obviously they should be there, but the casual reader doesn't need to see them.  Perhaps now and they you could throw in the year of a case in the main text, if it is relevant to the reader's understanding of the sequence of events.


 * "200 years". If you have a numeral quantifying a noun in that way, there needs to be a non-breaking space there.


 * "different judges provided different decisions as to whether or not a third party could enforce a contract that benefited them." This is very awkward language.  Don't you think something like "judges differed as to whether a third party could enforce a party which benefited them" would be better?  Or (if it is true) "judges offered different rationales for the rule".  The article is unclear as to whether the dispute is about the result (that is some judges ruled a third party could sue) or if it is just a question of the legal basis for the decisions involving the rule.  Keep in mind that I'm not giving every example of language I'm finding awkward, it really needs to be gone over with an eye to clarity.


 * Criticism Beswick. You might want to say who was suing to enforce the contract here.
 * "the United States". You're kidding me right?  Ever hear of Ultramares Corporation v. Touche?  While God knows the doctrine of privity in the US varies from state to state and is riddled with exceptions, to say it doesn't exist?!?!?

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am most emphatically NOT a lawyer and feel somewhat intimidated to comment, but maybe looking back at the statements in the source explicitly stated for the affirmation might be called for: sounds like some subtility might have been lost along the way. As an aside, there seems to be an aspect that the term "privity" is quite often not used (or in a more restrictive sense) in the American courts (though more often by commentators). D & H Distributing v. US 102 F.3d 542 sounds like a textbook case of privity in the English sense: "the subcontractor sought to recover from the government [because] either [...] it was a third party beneficiary of the contract between the government and the contractor." Yet the word "privity" does not appear anywhere in the judgement. Circéus (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way, even though the term may not always be used, the concept certainly exists in US law. And so does the term, just drop privity into any legal search engine.  Either way, that statement is very problematical in the article.  Read here.  Can you give me the quote from the source, by any chance?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I can't. My area of specialty is translation, not law, though most likely Ironholds still has copies of the article he used (since he's noted they were electronic copies). The privity as deriving from Ultramares (again as a non-lawyer) is somewhat odd to me as it appear to involve tort in the specific context of accountancy contracts. The formal "equivalent" of the Privity doctrine (as established in the act) would be, as far as I can tell, the third party beneficiary, though whether that is grounded in case law or legislation the article doesn't say. Indeed if the doctrine in that form (i.e. excluding third parties) is not applied/does not exist in the U.S., the statement makes sense; it is merely worded in a misleading fashion. Circéus (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, privity in the US is not limited to accountancy. In fact I think it is now moribund there, given congressional legislation after recent scandals.  Not my area of expertise, but you got to know a bit about everything to be a lawyer.  But the candidate article still says, blanket statement, there is no privity of contract in the US legal system.  I'm entitled to look at that and wonder as to the accuracy of other statements.  I'm willing to hear what you and Ironholds have to say about it, and I am hopeful that I will eventually support, but I believe my concerns are valid.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment sect-stub in article. If the section requires expansion, please withdraw from FAC. If it does not require expansion, please rmv stub template. &bull; Ling.Nut 04:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That was added in the middle of the argument which you can read on the talk page if you suffer from morbid curiosity. I'd happily remove it, but I suspect Wikidea will fight fight tooth and nail to make sure it remains on the article. Circéus (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know you and you don't know me, so I'd suggest that you refrain from making comments like that. I happen to know a little bit about this subject, and that's why I've give my criticisms.  Wik idea  18:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the question is, should there be a FAC where there is an ongoing dispute like that, or should the dispute be settled first?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the FAC be withdrawn – hopefully without bitterness or bad feelings on anyone's part. The FAC process will still be here when the probs are hammered out. The community is too short on reviewers to wade through a dispute of any substance. &bull; Ling.Nut 02:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments In refs but not notes: Roe. In notes but not refs: Stevens. &bull; Ling.Nut 14:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Needs work on the writing. I strongly encourage the nominator to keep writing/improving in this area. WP can do great service to anglophone legal systems and education with this type of article.
 * Not being an expert in this field, I find the 1999/1990 clash peculiar.
 * Why is "United Kingdom" linked (and bolded) in the infobox? Please see WP:OVERLINK. Why is "Long title" linked? It doesn't seem to be a hard item to grapple with, even for a seven-year-old.
 * The direct quotation in the second sentence: a bit odd without refering explicitly to the author ... "... and, as Dean put it, removed "one of the ...". Do that and you can dispense with the redundant "thereby" and your square-bracketed insertion.
 * No direct ref. to the Sixth Interim Report. How could a reader access it?
 * Watch those additive connectors, which are usually redundant: both "alsos" in the last para of the lead could go. And consider a semicolon: "... third party; it provides protection ...".


 * I mean this in a constructive way: you've clearly done a lot of legal writing; this register is well-known for being ... well ... legalistic. It's so easy to iron out for normal people, though. Let's look at one sentence:
 * The historical doctrine of privity consisted of two rules – the first was that a third party may not have obligations imposed by the terms of a contract, and second was that a third party may not benefit from the terms of a contract.
 * Why not:
 * The historical doctrine of privity consisted of two rules – that a third party may not have obligations imposed by the terms of a contract, and may not benefit from the terms of a contract.
 * The joys of ellipsis.


 * "different ... different". Does one provide a decision? Remove "or not"? "them" (singular they) is just fine by me, but it just could refer back to the judges.
 * "which confirmed that a third party could not enforce a contract that benefited him"—now the singular they is dropped in favour of the generic male. But more importantly, it's ambiguous: does it mean that the judgement meant a third party could enforce a contract as long as they didn't benefit from it?

Haven't read further than this; suggest an audit on the writing is in order. Tony  (talk)  06:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.