2016Oxford University Commonwealth Law JournalRequires access

The great Indian privity trick: hundred years of misunderstanding nineteenth century English contract law

Shivprasad Swaminathan

Open publisher page 5 citations

Abstract

It has been the received wisdom for over a century now that the Indian Contract Act 1872 could not have meant to alter the English law's privity requirement as there is no specific language dispensing with the privity rule. In the 1860s, when the Act was being drafted, however, a person from whom consideration did not move did not have the right to sue at English law. This was the only barrier the drafters envisaged and dismantled with s 2(d), which allowed consideration to move from the ‘promisee’ or ‘any other person’. But its effect was also to preempt any putative privity of contract based barrier; as long as the promisor got the desired consideration, not only the ‘promisee’ but ‘any other person’—whether or not a party—could sue upon the contract.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

It has been the received wisdom for over a century now that the Indian Contract Act 1872 could not have meant to alter the English law's privity requirement as there is no specific language dispensing with the privity rule. In the 1860s, when the Act was being drafted, however, a person from whom consideration did not move did not have the right to sue at English law. This was the only barrier the drafters envisaged and dismantled with s 2(d), which allowed consideration to move from the ‘promisee’ or ‘any other person’. But its effect was also to preempt any putative privity of contract based barrier; as long as the promisor got the desired consideration, not only the ‘promisee’ but ‘any other person’—whether or not a party—could sue upon the contract.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

It has been the received wisdom for over a century now that the Indian Contract Act 1872 could not have meant to alter the English law's privity requirement as there is no specific language dispensing with the privity rule. In the 1860s, when the Act was being drafted, however, a person from whom consideration did not move did not have the right to sue at English law. This was the only barrier the drafters envisaged and dismantled with s 2(d), which allowed consideration to move from the ‘promisee’ or ‘any other person’. But its effect was also to preempt any putative privity of contract based barrier; as long as the promisor got the desired consideration, not only the ‘promisee’ but ‘any other person’—whether or not a party—could sue upon the contract.

Key concepts: Privity of contract, Law, Political science, Exclusion clause, Economics, Management, Contract management

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The great Indian privity trick: hundred years of misunderstanding nineteenth century English contract law — Research Paper | ScholarLens