|
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:02:23 From: Andrew Tettenborn Subject: Third party contracts and small verbal differences
What's the difference between discharging X's debts and paying off X's creditors? Quite a lot, at least according to the decision of the English CA in Avraamides v Colwill [2006] EWCA Civ 1533 on the interpretation of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. A gets B Ltd to revamp his bathrooms. B Ltd botch the job and owe A a tidy sum in damages. B sells its bathroom-revamping business to C, C promising (1) "to settle the current liabilities of the company ..." and (2) "to complete outstanding customer orders taking into account any deposits paid by customers as at 31 March 2003, and to pay in the normal course of time any liabilities properly incurred by the company as at 31 March 2003." B being but, A sues C as third-party beneficiary. Held, the suit fails, since under s.1(3) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999), the third party "... must be expressly identified in the contract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description but need not be in existence when the contract is entered into." Here, says the court, there's no express naming of the third party, and the word "express" means you can't infer who it might be from the wording or intent of the contract as a whole. Had C agreed to "pay the current creditors of the company" A would presumably have won. As it is C must be thanking his lucky stars his lawyers chose to say "settle the current liabilities of the company," even though no doubt the lawyers thought it made no odds which way they put it.
Best wishes to all Andrew --
Tel:
01392-263189 / +44-392-263189 (outside UK) Snailmail:
School of Law, Exeter
Law School homepage: http://www.law.ex.ac.uk
LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law (Ambrose Bierce, 1906). <<<< Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next Message >>>>>
|
»
»
»
»