- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
.
- Posts
In relation to the law of contract explain:
(a) the doctrine of privity; (3 marks)
(b) how the doctrine can be avoided at common law; (4 marks)
(c) how the doctrine is avoided under statute. (3 marks)Part (a) is OK.
Now, if I know exceptions [(but in a mixed form – not under specific headings (Common Law and Statute)], can I mix both parts, i.e. (b) & (c) in the exams ?
Thanks
Hi Shunmas
Your question says “can I …” Clearly, yes you can. However, it’s not ideal. Having said that, I doubt that the marker would be so cruel as to mark you down. If you can show that avoidance may be achieved by either statute or by common law I think that should satisfy the marker.
Basically, why not write ( when you are writing the number of your answer on the answer page ) “b and c”? And DON’T write anything like “Sorry marker but I couldn’t separate these two parts” In fact, don’t write ANY “personal” messages to the marker at all!
- Topics: 23
- Replies: 68
- ☆☆
b) At common law, are they: suing in another capacity, collateral contracts, valid assignment, foreseeable loss to the 3rd party, implied trusts, and covenants.
c) under Acts like the RTA 1972 and Contracts (Rights of 3rd Parties) Act 1999.
If that’s right I guess, what, a couple of marks for that level of detail? Throw in a couple of cases and a bit of fleshing out and have you got a pretty good answer?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.