Plaintiff contracted for X to transport its goods and X employed Defendant, stevedores, who dropped some packages.
In the contract was a term limiting the amount for which the “carrier” would be liable in the event of damage to the packages.
HL held that Defendant could not rely on the limitation of liability since the contract was between Plaintiff and X and therefore Defendant was not entitled to its protection.
I.e. there is no vicarious protection from contracts.
There is a “general rule that a stranger to a contract cannot in a question with either of the contracting parties take advantage of provisions of the contract, even where it is clear from the contract that some provision in it was intended to benefit him.”
This is demonstrated by Tweddle.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Contract Law | Privity Notes (43 pages) |