From: Michael Collins <jcollinsmichael@gmail.com>
To: Stéphane Sérafin <Stephane.Serafin@uottawa.ca>
CC: Lionel Smith <ls2019@cam.ac.uk>
Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>
obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Date: 18/04/2023 16:43:52 UTC
Subject: Re: Statutory Exceptions to Privity
I doubt we can draw this distinction in the abstract.

If for example a rule only applied to statutory causes of action, the origin and purpose of the rule would help inform whether it applied to an action under a statutory exception to privity, a contributory negligence claim, etc.

Michael

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 2:09 PM Stéphane Sérafin <Stephane.Serafin@uottawa.ca> wrote:

I’m not sure it’s so strange from a civil law vantage point, actually. There has historically been a rather important difference between a Code, which is meant to embody enduring principles of private law, and a mere statute. That a statutory rule happens to affect contract law does not mean that it is of the same nature as a rule contained in a Code.

 

Stéphane

 

From: Lionel Smith <ls2019@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 11:39 AM
To: Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>; obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: Statutory Exceptions to Privity

 

Attention : courriel externe | external email

I don’t know the article, but anyone who has interacted with the civilian tradition (where most of private law is in statutory form) will find the author’s position that you describe rather strange.

If Ontario codified its contract law into a Contracts Act (cf India) would that mean that all contracts made in Ontario would be ‘statutory claims’ and no one had any ‘contractual rights’ any more?

I think the position confuses an inquiry into what makes a rule count as a legal rule (judge-made or statutory) and what makes a rule count as a rule of contract law (see Steve Smith, Contract Theory).

Lionel

 

 

From: Jason Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>
Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 10:16
To: ODG <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: ODG: Statutory Exceptions to Privity

 

Dear Colleagues:

 

Many months ago I read a reference to an article arguing that the statutory exceptions to privity of contract are not really exceptions since a person relying on a statutory claim is in essence suing to enforce an entitlement granted by statute rather than relying solely on the contractual right. Unfortunately, and embarrassingly I cannot seem to find where I found that article referenced (I believe that it was in an Australian treatise but I have looked and looked to no avail). Does anyone know of this article? I would like to read it and cite it potentially.

 

Thank you in advance for any assistance!

 

Sincerely,  

 

 

esig-law

Jason Neyers
Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
Law Building Rm 26
e. jneyers@uwo.ca
t. 519.661.2111 (x88435)

 

 

 

 

You're receiving this message because you're a member of the obligations group from The University of Western Ontario. To take part in this conversation, reply all to this message.

 

View group files   |   Leave group   |   Learn more about Microsoft 365 Groups