A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY UNDER THE LAW OF CONTRACT IN NIGERIA. - UNIPROJECTS

Latest

TO GET COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL, CALL US ON 07064961036 (CHAT WITH US WHATSPP), 08068355992

CHAT

A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY UNDER THE LAW OF CONTRACT IN NIGERIA.



A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY UNDER THE LAW OF CONTRACT IN NIGERIA.
FOR COMPLETE PROJECT CALL 07064961036
                                                   ABSTRACT   
The doctrine of privity of contract is dynamic and  inevitable; therefore it must not be taken with levity. In PRICE V EASTON for instance it was held that no one may be entitled to or bound by the terms of a contract to which he is not an original party. The doctrine dictates that a person who is not a party to a contract can not be granted contractual rights by the contract or be placed under contractual obligation by it. The question now is “WHY SHOULD WE ALLOW ONLY PARTIES TO A CONTRACT TO HAVE RIGHTS UNDER IT”. These and more will be discussed in this long essay.
For the sake of clarity, this long essay will be divided into four (4) chapters. Chapter 1 looks at the law of contract at a glance (putting into consideration the fact that the doctrine of privity is sheltered by the law of contract).
The history of the law of contract and that of the doctrine of privity, the nature of the law of contract and what makes a contract valid (noting that there are some agreement that will be seen as a contract by the parties and is not known to law), the various types of contract  and the relevance of the contract will also be considered under the first chapter
Chapter 2 is going to be more precise as we will deal basically with the doctrine of privity, the rationale for the doctrine and the way it operate, its relation to some other contractual terms will also be considered here.
Chapter 3 will cover situations in which the doctrine  will not apply (i.e. its exceptions) such as under an agency relationship, insurance concept, the provision of sec. 81(1) of the property and conveying law, western Nigeria, covenant running with land, etcetera will be looked at.
Chapter 4 being the last chapter will focus on the need for reform of the doctrine by making some recommendation and suggestions on how best the doctrine can be applied.



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page
Certification
Dedication
Acknowledgement
Abstract
Table of content
Table of Cases
CHAPTER ONE: LAW OF CONTRACT
1.1.1     The History of the Law of Contract and the
                Doctrine of Privity
1.1.2       The Nature of the Law of Contract
1.1.3       Definition and Formation of Contract
1.2          Elements of a Valid Contract
1.2.1       Offer
1.2.2       Acceptance
1.2.3       Consideration
1.2.4      Intention to Enter into Legal Relation
1.2.5    Capacity to Enter into a Contract
1.3       Classification of Contract
1.4      Essence of the Law of Contract
CHAPTER TWO: SCOPE OF THE DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT
2.1            The General Rule
2.1.1    The Meaning and Nature of the Doctrine
2.2            Reason for the Doctrine
2.3            Operation and Application of the Doctrine
2.4            Operation of the Doctrine in Relation to some Contractual terms
2.4.1       Privity and Consideration
2.4.2      Effects of Privity on Exemption Clause
2.4.3      Privity and Collateral Contracts
CHAPTER THREE: EXCEPTION TO THE DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY
3.1            Agency
3.2            Restrictive Covenant (Covenant Running with Land)
3.3            Trust Concept and Privity
3.4            Insurance Concept
3.5            Banker’s Commercial Credits
3.6            Assignment of Choses in Action
CHAPTER FOUR
4.1     Summary
4.2     Conclusion
4.3     Recommendation

TABLE OF CASES
AKENE V BRITISH INSURANCE CO. NIG LTD (UNREPORTED)
BESWICK V BESWICK (1966) Ch, 538
CHUBA IKPEAZU V ACB LTD (1965) NMLR 374
COLLEN V WRIGHT (1857) E & B 647, 372
DANJUMA V STANDARD CO. Of  NIG LTD (1975) 2 CCHJ, 179
DEMPSTER V PATERSON, ZOCHONIS & CO. (1924) AC 522
DONOGHUE V STEVENSON (1932) AS 526
DRIVE YOURSELF HIRE CO.LTD V STRUTT (1954) A QB 250
DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO. LTD V SELFRIDGE & CO LTD (1925) AC 847 (A) 853
DUTTON V POOLE (1678) 2. LEV 210
EKUMA V SILVER EAGLE SHIPPING AGENCIES (1987) A NLR
FORMBY V BARKER (1908) 2 Ch 539
GANDY v GANDY (1834) 30 Ch D 54
GBADAMOSI V MBADIWE (1964) 2 ANLR 19
GREGORY & PARKER V WILLIAMS 91817)  3 Mer. 582
HYDE V WRENCH (1840) 3 Beave. 334
HIRACHAND PUNAMCHAND V TEMPLE (1911) 2 K.B 330
JACKSON V HORISON HOLIDAY LTD (1975) 3 AER,  92
KEPONG PROSPECTING V SCHIMDT (1968) AC 890
LAW DEBENTURE TRUST CORP PLC V URAL CASPAIN OIL CORP LTD (1993) 2 AER, 355
Les Affreteur Reunis SA V Leopold Walford (London) Ltd (1919) AC 801
LORD STRATHCONA STEAMSHIP CO. V DOMINION COAL (1926) AC 108
MARCHINGTON V VERNON (1786) 1 B& P 101 N (C )
NASH V INMAN (1908)
ODUNFUNDADE V OSO SAMI (1972) NLR 52
PENN V BRISTOL & WEST BUILDING (1997), WLR 1356
PORTLINE LTD V BENLINE STEAMERS LTD (1958) A QB 146
PRICE V EASTON (1833) 4 B & Ad. 433
R & CLARKE (1927) 40 CLR 227
R V LAMBLE (1982) AC 449.
RATZLAFF V FRANZFOODS (1971)
RE HUDSON (1885) 53 L.J CR 811
RE SCHEBSMAN, OFFICIAL RECEIVER V CARGO SUPERIN TENDENTS (LONDON) LTD (1919) AC 801
SCRUTTONS LTD V MIDLAND SILICONES LTD (1962) AC 446
SHADRACK ERI V ONADJERIA DAMIFO (Unreported) H.C of formal Bendel State.
SHANKLIN PIER V DETEL PRODUCTS LTD (1951) 2 K.B 854
SMITH V RIVER DOUGLAS CATCHMENT BOARD (1949) 2 K.B 504
SULE NORWICH FIRE INSURANCE CO. (Nig) Ltd (Unreported) H.C of Western Nig J.P
THE EURYMEDON (1975) AC 154
THOMAS V THOMAS (1875) LR 10 EXCL 153
TULK V MOXHAY (1848) 2 Ph 774
TWEDDLE V ATKINSON (1861) 1 B & S at P 398
WAUGH v H.B CLIFFORD & SONS 91982) 1 Ch. 374
WOODAR INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT LTD V WIMPEY CONSTRUCTION UK LTD (1988) HL



CHAPTER ONE: LAW OF CONTRACT
1.1.1 THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF CONTRACT AND THE DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY
The contract idea is ancient. Thousands of years ago, the Egyptians and Mesopotamians recognized devices like contract, by the 15th century the common law courts of England  had