The Doctrine of Privity of Contract

The doctrine of Privity of contract provides that only parties to a contract can benefit from a particular contract or suffer its burden.[1] There are two limbs to this definition.[2] The first is that a third party cannot be subjected to burden resulting from a contract of which he is not a party. The second limb is that a third party cannot sue to obtain the promised performance even where the contract was entered for his benefit.

Prior to 1861, the second limb was fully in force but this was put to a stop in 1861 in the case of Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B & S 392. A person entitled to a benefit from a contract capable of suing for the performance should bear the burdens arising from such contract. It should not be limited only to his advantages. If he can sue then he can BE sued. The Common Law recognizes certain exceptions to this doctrine such as agency and trust.

The doctrine of Privity of Contract calls for some reform or relaxation.[3] What happens in a situation where employees of a party to a contract defaults, will they be held responsible when they are not parties to the contract or will the employer  who is a party to the contract be held responsible? This is illustrated in the case of London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd  (1992) 97 DLR 261.[4]

In conclusion, I think that a party (whether third party or not) who will gain from a contract should be held responsible for any default resulting from the contract. The doctrine of Privity should not stand in the way of commercial reality and justice.

---

 [1] The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999; J Poole, Casebook on Contract Law (9^th Edn OUP,
       New York 2008)

[2] E Mckendrick, Contract Law (7^th Edn Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2007)

[3] n 1 at 514

[4] n 1 at 513 It was held that the employees could rely on the limitation clause, since they were acting in the course of their employment and performing the very services contracted for by the plaintiffs. They were implicit third party beneficiaries of the clause.

Summary of the essay on the Regulations governing the child labour and whether they have been successful.

Efforts have been made by different organizations and Laws established to abolish child labour. Amongst these organizations are

Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989[1] was initiated to incorporate the full range of human rights as it relates to people under the age of 18 years. International Labour Organization has organized two Conventions[2]in the past; Convention 138 on Minimum Age for Workers 1973 which sets the minimum age level for admission to work and also what qualifies as hazardous work and Convention 182 on Worst Forms of Child Labour 1999 which requires countries to take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency.

Some of the factors that cause and encourage child labour[3]include:

1)    Poverty. Large families’ inability to provide for themselves.

2)    Unenforcement of child labour laws. Countries that have such laws still fail to abide by them.

3)    Some regulations have exemptions whereby a child can do agricultural or domestic jobs.

4)    Government in the name globalization seek cheap labour and also some employers. These do not encourage abolition of child labour.

Conclusively it can be said that these regulations has not been fully successful though they have gone afar in ensuring the abolition of child labour.

---

[1] UNICEF, < http://www.unicef.org/crc> accessed on 25 October 2010

[2] J Kooijmans, ’ILO and its Work against Child Labour: The Normative Framework and Recent Progress’. [2007] 14 

 Tilburg Law Review 31< http://heinonline.org/HOL/page?handle=hein.journals/tiflr 

14&div=7&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=3&men_tab=srchresults&terms=%28%28CHILD%20%AND%20LABOUR%29%29&type=matchall> accessed 25 October 2010

[3] ‘Child Labour’ <http://www.freethechildren.com/getinvolved/geteducated/childlabour.htm> accessed on 27 October 2010

UNITED STATES MID-TERM ELECTIONS

The US midterm elections have gone the way of most observers; with massive votes swinging towards the Republicans and their ultraconservative Tea Party campaigners with a majority win in the House of Representatives. Is this an imminent end of the romance between President Obama and the Americans; or akin to a shot of heroin in the arm to arouse the addict from his dull moments? With two years left on his tenure, a sliding economy, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obamamania has lost popular appeal with scores of Americans, because so much promises have fallen short in bringing about ‘the change that we (Americans) believe in.’ However, a slight Democratic Party majority retained in the Senate leaves a glimmer of hope but bipartisan co-operation is critical to successfully push through critical legislations.

SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP 3: IS FAIR TRADE FAIR?

The essay tried to elucidate the effects of fair trade in the global world. Fair trade as the name implies has really made some positive changes in the life of so many economically disadvantaged farmers, workers and produced. Workers who were unable to afford basic amenities of life can testify to these positive changes like electricity, quick access to hospital using ambulances, increased wages.

Surprisingly not all are happy. Critics have argued that there is unreasonable distribution of wealth, that multinational companies take advantage of the Fair trade Certification Mark to market their products which do not pass the fair trade test. They believe that workers are suffering to make money for all these companies instead of themselves. Most poor African countries are not benefiting from Fair trade because they do not get the opportunity to market their products and when they do, the money they get are far lower than what will come out of the end products.

The idea of Fair trade is a wonderful one but checks should be put in place to monitor against abuse of fair trade certification mark. There should reasonable distribution of money realized. In addition the issue of marginalization should be looked into and countries with potential products should be involved and encouraged to sell their products outside their boundaries.

MENS REA

A scenario: M, a drug supplier supplies T, the buyer with heroin every month. M's supplies always come from a particular source. At the last supply, M was informed of the  pure nature of the heroin. M did not inform T of the pure nature and T consumes the normal dosage and dies. M argues that though he supplied the heroin, he did not force T to take it. Will M be held responsible for T's death? Can it be said that M was reckless or negligent?
Recklessness is a subjective form of mens rea which means looking at what the actual defendant was thinking or what the magistrates or jury believe the defendant was thinking. The defendant must always be aware of the risk in order to satisfy this test of recklessness.M would not have wanted T dead because that will mean losing one customer.
Was M negligent? This test can subsist where a duty of care is owed and this can arise where there is a relationship existing between the parties involved. Can it be said that there exists a relationship between M and T, whether that of contractual relationship or that they were neighbours?
Possession of heroin is an offence under the Act(Offences Against The Person Act 1861) but administration of drugs unto oneself is not an offence. It can be argued that being in possession of heroin did not kill T but the taking of the heroin and the issue in question is the death of T.Therefore it can be said that M cannot be held responsible. See the case of Kennedy [2005] EWCA Crim 685.
The fact that informing T of the pure nature of the heroin MIGHT have made a difference, should it be thrown out?

SHOULD CHILD LABOUR BE ENCOURAGED?

I was going through some online materials on child labour and I came across some questions posed by a columnist from Libertarian Newspaper Stephen Chapman. His question goes like this, 'why is it unconscionable for a poor country to allow child labour? Pakistan has a per capita income of $1,900 per year meaning that the typical person subsists on barely $5 per day. Is it a revelation - or a crime- that some parents willingly send their children off to work in a factory to survive? Is it cruel for Nike to give them the chance?' He argues that the best way to end child labour is to buy more of the products that children produce.
This sounds so strange and different from I what I been reading but it dawned on me that there is still plenty work to be done to achieve the aims and objectives of UN Convention on the Rights of the Child if we have plenty Stephen Chapmans in our midst.
There is need to let people know that the adverse effect of child labour is far greater than the visible and immediate positive gains it generates.