Search

Introduction: The inclusion of a third party's personal data as an emergency contact in an agreement is often done one-sidedly by the debtor, to the detriment of the third party who is often disturbed to find the debtor's whereabouts, even though the third party does’nt know and never agreed to have his personal data included as an emergency contact. Purposes of the Research: This research aims to find out the abrogation of the principle of privity of contract in the context of one-sided withdrawal of a third party as an emergency contact in the perspective of personal guarantee law (borgtocht). Methods of the Research: This research is using the normative juridical method. The approach is through legislation, which is the Civil Code and conceptual approaches. Results of the Research: The principle of privity of contract in the perspective of personal guarantee law (borgtocht) will be invalid and cannot be applied to emergency contact if the third party whose name is included is not asked for prior approval by the parties in the agreement.

This study critically analyses the entrenched concept of the privity of contract doctrine within the context of goods delivery agreements and its impact on the final consumer, specifically focusing on issues of delayed delivery and consequential losses. Adopting normative legal research methodologies, it employs statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches to dissect this complex consumer protection issue. The research reveals that while the privity of contract paradigm posits rights and obligations as exclusive to the contracting parties, the final consumer, as the recipient of goods, possesses legal standing in cases of delivery negligence or incurred losses. The study also highlights the consumer's right to delivery in accordance with the agreed terms, even when not a primary party in the agreement, as long as the goods are not for resale. The paper concludes by emphasizing the critical role of judges in assessing immaterial losses based on the principle of ex aequo et bono, thus underscoring a shift towards a caveat vendor approach in consumer law, with significant implications for both business actors and global consumer protection frameworks. Highlights: • The concept of privity of contract is not absolute in goods delivery agreements, and the final consumer can possess legal standing in cases of delivery negligence or incurred losses. • The recipient of goods, even when not a primary party in the agreement, maintains the right to delivery in accordance with the agreed terms, provided the goods are not intended for resale. • Judges play a pivotal role in quantifying immaterial losses, underlining the shift towards a caveat vendor approach in consumer law. Keywords: Privity of Contract, Consumer Protection, Goods Delivery Agreements, Legal Standing, Ex Aequo et Bono.

We analyse the legal and economic background and implications of the destandardisation of digital contracts, with a focus on consumer protection and overall efficiency. We argue that firms can exploit destandardisation paired with asymmetric information to extract rents. We propose the introduction of a numerus clausus principle in the digital licensing realm (a limit to the contractual freedom of parties to create proprietary rights) as a way of reducing rent extraction by firms and increasing consumer surplus. With a simple economic model, we account for the tradeoff between the benefit from reduced market power and the social cost of legally enforced standardisation, and show that some degree of enforced standardisation can be optimal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides update on developments on Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) on sales of goods and contracts for the future sales of goods. Topics discussed are statute of frauds, contract formation, modification and waiver, contract or contract clause that is unconscionable, warranties including privity of contract, title to goods, creditors and good faith, performance and breach of contract, sellers's and buyer's remedies, and statute of limitations for breach of contract.

Prior to bill of lading (BOL), merchants travelled along with their goods; then recorded the goods in the ship's mates's register; and finally started selling the goods while in transit by way of BOL, indicative that BOL is negotiable. Common law doctrine of privity of contract did not allow the transfer of right to sue to a non-party to the contract. This created hardship to cargo owners which made many jurisdictions to enact laws in this regard. Bill of Lading Act 1855 (BLA) was enacted in United Kingdom which applied as Statute of general application under section 375 Merchant Shipping Act 1990 (MSA) in Nigeria; and conferred contractual rights of suit on consignees and endorsees, but on the passing of ownership upon or by reason of such consignment or indorsement on the shipment of the goods simultaneously. The repeal of section 375 MSA by section 439 MSA 2007, created a lacuna and doctrine of privity of contract is the extant law in Nigeria. The aim of this study is to evaluate laws governing the transfer of contractual right of suit to third party under bill of lading in Nigeria. The specific objectives of this study are to: (i) ascertain the extent to which the extant law of common law doctrine of privity of contract covers the transfer of right of suit to third party under bill of lading in Nigeria; (ii) determine the impediment(s) of the common law to transfer right to sue in the absence of any legislation; (iii) determine the applicability of doctrine of privity of contract as it relates to transfer of contractual right of suit to third party under bill of lading; and (iv) proffer possible suggestions on how to fill the lacuna created by the repeal of Merchant Shipping Act 1990 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004. This work adopted doctrinal approach with reliance on primary and secondary source materials. It finds that the common law doctrine of privity of contract in Nigeria is retrogressive. This work recommends for the amendment of the relevant statute to cure this defect/lacuna just like other commonwealth nations for best international practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]