Wikipedia:Peer review/Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999/archive1

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering sending it to FAC, and would like a critique first.

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Road Wizard

I haven't had time for a detailed review as yet, but after a quick glance over I spotted that the date of introduction was out by a month (now fixed) and the explanatory notes for the Act contradict the statement, "coming into force in May 2000 as the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999" (not fixed). I will carry out a more detailed check in the next few days. Road Wizard (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

comprehensive well-researched appropriate structure I think that covers the issues I have spotted so far. Road Wizard (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Comments from
 * The description in the lead of when it came into force is inaccurate as it came into force before May 2000; the sentence should be reworded.
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The passage of the bill through Parliament is limited to two sentences; can more be said about it beyond the joke about a birthday present? Was there any significant debate, any calls to a vote or any significant amendments to the original bill? If there was nothing significant then perhaps a sentence like, "the bill passed through parliament with no/minimal opposition; no amendments were made to the bill and no vote was required."
 * There were no significant amendments that I can find in third party sources; such a sentence would be effectively original research, because it would be me going "I have looked through primary sources and cannot see any massive debates, ergo there were no massive debates". Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it worth listing the amendments to the act since it came into force? If so a section at the end of the article would be the logical place for it.
 * There are only two of them, so I'll probably include them within the text when I have the time. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "This ruling was quickly reversed, and decisions immediately after used the original rule." (unsourced)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Territorial Extent: Mostly England and Wales, but Northern Ireland for some sections" appears to be incorrect. The text of the Act says all sections apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland except section 9 which applies only to Northern Ireland. The infobox description implies only parts of the act apply to Northern Ireland.
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd is a redlink is it worth providing a citation with link to some of the case notes, like so? On a side note are we ever likely to have an article there? Italicised case name with cited case notes may be a worthwhile alternative to a redlink.
 * Such a site isn't a WP:RS; I will, however, endeavour to put at least a stub in place within the next few days. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a little wary of the references to the article text. They are useful as supporting references to a secondary source or where a direct quote is used. However, in some places they are the only reference used and seem to support interpretations of the text. The interpretations are quite likely correct but it would be much safer if a secondary source does the interpretation for us. One example I am thinking of is for section 7 (currently titled "Part VII") where the self-reference is the only source.
 * Point - I'll try and find a RS covering Section 7. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Acts of Parliament are split into sections and when the text is long they are split into parts. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 is a relatively short act, having 10 sections and no parts. The section headings referring to parts need to be corrected. Also, why the Roman numerals? This particular act doesn't seem to use the Roman numbering system.
 * Those sources I've seen use Roman numerals, but I see your point about the "Part" point. Since the official text uses standard numerals, I've changed both. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article lacks an External links section. It would be useful if the links to the text of the acts are repeated at the bottom of the article per most other Act articles, especially as the reference section refers to the text.
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your points :). Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a fairly tough read for a non-lawyer (me). After reading the article, I concluded that I would certainly need a lawyer to interpret the law and explain it to me if I were involved in a contract in the U.K. It may be impossible to make anything as complex as this completely clear to the average reader, but I think it would be possible to nudge it a bit closer to that sort of clarity. Most of my comments have to do with minor prose and style issues, some of which are related to clarity.

Lead Background
 * "the Law Commission proposed a new draft bill in 1991, and presenting their final report in 1996" - "presented" rather than "presenting"?
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "a new draft bill in 1991, and presenting their final report in 1996. The Bill was introduced to the House of Lords... " - In this sequence, "bill" is lower-cased in the first instance and upper-cased in the second. I think lower-case is correct. Ditto for other instances of "Bill" in the article except where it is part of the formal name of a particular bill. Ditto for "Act" in constructions such as this: "The Act allows third parties to enforce terms of contracts that benefit them... ". If you think "Act" should remain upper-case to make it distinct from other meanings of "act", then it should be "Act" throughout. In some places in the lower sections, it appears as "act".
 * Point; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The first reversal of this law in Bourne v Mason [1669] 1 Vent.," - I think most readers will understand that Bourne v Mason [1669] refers to a court case, but most will not know what "1 Vent" refers to. Would it be helpful to explain legal jargon like this in parentheses or in a note? "Hetley 30" is similarly mysterious, as is "121 ER 762". Maybe a general note could explain these terms.
 * would linking "1 Vent" and the like to Case citation help? Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's a helpful link and covers a lot of territory. Finetooth (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Righto, done. Ironholds (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "whether or not a third party could enforce a contract that benefited them. The dispute ended in 1861 with Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 121 ER 762, which confirmed that a third party could not enforce a contract that benefited him." - The first sentence ends with "benefited them", but the second ends with "benefited him". Probably "him" is correct because "third party" is singular. However, "him" might be considered sexist if used exclusively to mean "her or him". Using "third parties could enforce contracts that benefited them" might be an acceptable solution. Using "him or her" once in a while might be OK too. This same question arises at various places in the article.
 * I'd suggest using "him" - it's constantly used in textbooks and the like, simply to lend clarity (dealing with a third person in the singular). Gender is irrelevant, since "him" and "her", in a legal context, are taken to mean the same thing unless explicitly shown otherwise. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Finetooth (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the original doctrine Formation of the Act Part I: Right of third party to enforce contractual term Variation and rescission of contract Defences available to the promisor
 * "A second argument used to undermine the doctrine of privity is to point... " - "was" rather than "is"?
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style advises against repeating the main words of the article title in the heads and subheads. I'd suggest trimming this head to "Formation" and "Provisions of the Act" to "Provisions".
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "along with a draft Bill" - Lower-case "bill" here and further down in the section.
 * Should be fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Bill was introduced to the House of Lords on 3 December 1998, and, when during its second reading, was jokingly offered to Lord Denning as a birthday present due to his fight to overturn the doctrine of privity." - Lower-case "bill" and delete "when"?
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "An exception to the second rule is if the contract makes it clear that the third party is not meant to be able to enforce the term." - A bit awkward. Would something like this be better: "An exception to the second rule involves contracts that include language barring third parties from applying the rule"?
 * Much better, thanks! :). Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Another exception is contracts between solicitors and their clients to write wills... " - Since "exception" is singular and "contracts" is plural, perhaps "Another exception applies to contracts... ".
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "After the act was first published, Guenter Treitel argued that in a situation where the promisor felt that the second rule had been disapplied by the statement in the contract. The Onus would be on him to prove it,[23] something backed up by the High Court in Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 2602." - The first sentence is not a complete sentence. Also, I don't think "disapplied" is a real word; "Onus" should be lower-cased and linked, I think, to Burden of proof. Suggestion: "After the act was first published, Guenter Treitel argued that in a situation where the promisor felt that the second rule had been wrongly applied by a statement in the contract, the onus would be on him to prove it. The High Court in Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 2602" supported Treitel's reasoning."
 * Ta, fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "involving dozens of sub-contractors with chains of contracts between them... " - "among" rather than "between"?
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The third party must be identified by name or as a member of a particular group, and does not need to exist when the contract was made." - How is it possible to name a person or group that does not exist?
 * the person cannot exist. For example, if Finetooth reviews my article, I'll give his kids 500 quid each on their 12th birthday. This applies to the group "children of Finetooth". These children need not be in existence, but if you get with pod, such children then become eligible. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Although the topic is not discussed in the Law Commission's report or the bill itself, it is generally considered that the third party would have no rights against the promisee, regardless of his rights against the promisor." - Shouldn't "would have no rights" be "has no rights"?
 * Fixed - will do the rest tomorrow morning. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "This is only the default position - the Act allows parties to insert clauses... ". - Semicolon instead of spaced hyphen?
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "In certain situations the courts can ignore the consent of the third party and allow the promisor and promisee to change the contract regardless if the third party is mentally incapable... ". - Delete "regardless"?
 * Done; I also removed "in certain situations", since those situations are then listed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The contract may give specific methods that assent is to be communicated by, and if so any other method is not valid." - Suggestion: "The contract may specify the communication method(s), and if it does, any other method is not valid."
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The third party does not have to have suffered a detriment from his "reliance" - it is enough that he has simply... " - Wikipedia does not generally use a spaced hyphen. Spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes are sometimes OK, but here I think a semicolon would be better. Ditto for other similar uses of the spaced hyphen elsewhere in the article.
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Law Commission directly rejected the suggestion that the promisor should have every defence in a dispute with a third party that he would have in a dispute with the promisee (regardless of if it can be applied to the disputed term)." - "Should have" and "would have" are parallel to "could be applied" rather than "can be applied". I'd also recommend changing this slightly to "regardless of whether or not it could be applied" rather than "if".
 * Tweaked "regardless of whether or not it could be applied", but I didn't understand what you meant with the other point. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be vague. I meant that the verb forms should be parallel throughout the sentence; e.g., "could" rather than "can". You've already changed to "could", so this point is taken care of. Finetooth (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Part IV: Enforcement of contract by promisee Supplementary provisions relating to third party Scope and implementation of the Act References
 * "The Act takes a different attitude for the defences available to the promisor in counterclaims... " - Wouldn't the promisor be the one filing a counterclaim? If so, is "defences" the right word? My point is that in a counterclaim suit, the promisor would be the plaintiff and the third party the defendant.
 * Indeed, don't know what I was thinking there; changed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Part IV preserved the right of the promisee to enforce any term of the contract." - Most subsections of "Provisions of the Act" begin with a present-tense verb, which seems fine. The one beginning part IV is past tense, and so is "overrode" in the first sentence of Part I. I'd suggest changing the two exceptions to present tense; i.e., "overrides" and "preserves".
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "and excludes the section of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 that covers negligence from applying in actions against a third party." - Should this be "applying to actions" rather than "applying in actions"?
 * Indeed; my apologies; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Shorten head to "Scope and implementation"?
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Act made it clear that contracts made in the six-month "twilight period" could be enforced by the act if they made it clear in the contract that it was made under the terms of the Act." - There's a bit of number confusion here because of "contracts", "they", and then "contract", "it". Suggestion: "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."
 * "It does not repeal or abolish these exceptions... ". - "Did" rather than "does"?
 * Done, and done. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The last two citations (57 and 58) are incomplete. For example, 57 needs the date of last access, title, and author (Jeff Brown), and the publication date should be separated from the url.
 * Fixed; in my defence, I didn't add them :P. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Images''
 * The coat of arms image needs alt text for blind readers. I'm not sure how to go about adding alt text in a case like this. I can imagine the alt text itself (a description of the essence of the image), but the image appears to be part of a template. Perhaps alt text could be added to the template by someone who knows how. The general instructions for alt text live at WP:ALT. Suitable alt text is an FAC requirement.

I hope these suggestions and questions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)