On Justificiation and Method in Law Reform: The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

The present article, whilst focusing on the English Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, does not canvass the more specific details of that Act which have been dealt with quite comprehensively elsewhere. The focus of this article is broader and is dual in nature. It will examine, first, the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: PHANG, Andrew
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2002
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/211
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/1210/viewcontent/JustificationMethodLawReform_2002_JCL.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.sol_research-1210
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.sol_research-12102017-06-22T05:51:25Z On Justificiation and Method in Law Reform: The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 PHANG, Andrew The present article, whilst focusing on the English Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, does not canvass the more specific details of that Act which have been dealt with quite comprehensively elsewhere. The focus of this article is broader and is dual in nature. It will examine, first, the justification for the 1999 Act and, in particular, attempts to respond to the critique that the Act is wholly anathema to the underlying justification of the doctrine of privity itself. It will also consider whether or not the 1999 Act is an effective improvement over the existing (as well as future) situation at common law; in particular, this article examines the argument as to whether the 1999 Act is (in large part) merely the common law situation in legislative garb. It will be seen that the arguments surrounding this deceptively simple issue are in fact rather complex and of wider relevance to the method utilised in legislative reform as well as to the relationship between legislative reform and common law reform. However, it will be submitted that the 1999 Act nevertheless provides for flexibility without the risk of the loss of legitimacy which would result if the language of the 1999 Act were unduly stretched in order to do justice in hard cases. 2002-01-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/211 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/1210/viewcontent/JustificationMethodLawReform_2002_JCL.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Contracts
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic Contracts
spellingShingle Contracts
PHANG, Andrew
On Justificiation and Method in Law Reform: The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
description The present article, whilst focusing on the English Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, does not canvass the more specific details of that Act which have been dealt with quite comprehensively elsewhere. The focus of this article is broader and is dual in nature. It will examine, first, the justification for the 1999 Act and, in particular, attempts to respond to the critique that the Act is wholly anathema to the underlying justification of the doctrine of privity itself. It will also consider whether or not the 1999 Act is an effective improvement over the existing (as well as future) situation at common law; in particular, this article examines the argument as to whether the 1999 Act is (in large part) merely the common law situation in legislative garb. It will be seen that the arguments surrounding this deceptively simple issue are in fact rather complex and of wider relevance to the method utilised in legislative reform as well as to the relationship between legislative reform and common law reform. However, it will be submitted that the 1999 Act nevertheless provides for flexibility without the risk of the loss of legitimacy which would result if the language of the 1999 Act were unduly stretched in order to do justice in hard cases.
format text
author PHANG, Andrew
author_facet PHANG, Andrew
author_sort PHANG, Andrew
title On Justificiation and Method in Law Reform: The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
title_short On Justificiation and Method in Law Reform: The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
title_full On Justificiation and Method in Law Reform: The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
title_fullStr On Justificiation and Method in Law Reform: The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
title_full_unstemmed On Justificiation and Method in Law Reform: The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
title_sort on justificiation and method in law reform: the contracts (rights of third parties) act 1999
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2002
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/211
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/1210/viewcontent/JustificationMethodLawReform_2002_JCL.pdf
_version_ 1772829458880790528