Doctrine of Privity of Contract: Definition, Types, Exceptions & Example

Doctrine of Privity of Contract

Edited By Ritika Jonwal | Updated on Jul 02, 2025 05:39 PM IST

The very meaning of Privity in the Doctrine of Privity of Contract is that only the two parties to a contract have the right to sue each other if the contract has not been performed or discharged. This Doctrine is one of the important doctrines in the ambit of Contract Law. A contract is a Communication of Offer and Acceptance forwarded by one party to another and a contract brings with it liabilities and promises which should be followed by both parties, non-performance of which will lead to a breach of contract.

This Story also Contains

Meaning of Privity of Contract
Origin of the Doctrine of Privity of Contract
Essential Elements of the Doctrine of Privity of Contract
Types of Privity of Contracts
The English View on the Doctrine of Privity of Contract
The Indian View on The Doctrine of Privity of Contract
Importance of Consideration in the Doctrine of Privity of Contract
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract
The Doctrine of Privity of Contract Case Law
Conclusion

Doctrine of Privity of Contract

Meaning of Privity of Contract

According to the Doctrine of Privity of Contracts, only the parties that are involved in a contract have the right to sue another party or compel them to perform the liabilities and obligations that have been mentioned in a contract. No other party or a stranger or third party has the right to interfere in a contract which is between the parties and cannot compel any party to perform the promises made in a contract. The interest theory is the base of the doctrine of privity to a contract, which implies that only the party who has an interest in a contract has all the rights to protect their interest in a contract.

Illustration

A has come into a contract with B to deliver some essential goods. Now if A fails to deliver the essential goods in the required time, in this case only B has the right to take action against A and no other third party has the right to sue A as the contract of delivery of goods was between A and B.

Origin of the Doctrine of Privity of Contract

The origin of the Doctrine of Privity of Contract can be traced back to the English Common Law. the Doctrine of Consideration and the Doctrine of Privity of Contract were developed simultaneously, which says that consideration is one of the essential conditions to form a valid contract missing this will lead to a void contract. In the case of Price v. Easton 1833 where there was a contract made for completion of work for which the payment had to be done to a third party. And later when the third party tried to sue for non-payment of the dues the third party couldn’t sue as he was declared privy to the contract.

The Doctrine of Privity of Contract was fully developed and given a wider approach in the famous case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v. Selfridge and Co. Ltd. through a judgment delivered by Lord Haldane. The Doctrine of Privity of Contract played a very important role in giving way to many other important doctrines one of them was the Doctrine of Negligence.

Essential Elements of the Doctrine of Privity of Contract

The essential elements to constitute the Doctrine of Privity of Contract are given below-

There should be a valid contract between both parties
The parties to the Contract should be competent enough to enter into a contract. This means neither of the parties to a contract should be a minor, a person of unsound mind, etc.
There should be a valid offer and acceptance followed by a valid consideration.
Either party to a contract have to fail to perform the promises or obligations that were made in a contract. This will lead to a breach of contract, as a breach of contract is one of the essential conditions that give the other party the power to use the provisions of the Doctrine of privity of Contract.
The last and the most important element of the privity of Contract is that only the participating party to a contract has the right to sue another party or compel them to perform the contract, no third party has the right to enter or interfere.

Types of Privity of Contracts

There are two types of Privity of Contracts-

Horizontal Privity of Contracts

The meaning of Horizontal Privity of Contracts means two parties in a contract having legal relationships between them and one party to the contract can sue another party on non-performance of a contract if a contract is breached.

Vertical Privity of Contracts

Vertical privity of Contracts is usually used in business contracts. It is a contract between two business partners or companies like a manufacturer and a distributor. The party to business contracts are responsible for any loss in business or defective product

The English View on the Doctrine of Privity of Contract

According to the idea of the Doctrine of privity of contract, an agreement can only be enforced by the parties that are involved in a contract, no third party can impose on the contract or interfere with it The concept of privity has been slightly undermined in recent years, allowing third-party beneficiaries to recover damages for breaches of contracts in which they were not parties. However, only parties to a contract may file a lawsuit for breach of that contract.

In the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, the Doctrine of Privity of Contract was established. Atkinson and Tweddle's father-in-law agreed to provide $100 every month to support Tweddle and his wife. Tweddle's father-in-law fulfilled part of the agreement, but Atkinson died before he could complete the payment. He, therefore, did not perform.

Tweddle filed a lawsuit against Atkinson's estate. However, the court rejected his claim since Tweddle's father-in-law didn't consider Atkinson. Moreover, Tweddle was left out of the contract. Tweddle was not a party to the contract or the consideration, thus the court rejected the claim even though he stood to benefit from it.

Furthermore, the Doctrine of Privity of Contract was applied more broadly in the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v. Self Ridge & Co. case, where Dunlop Limited sought to sell its tires for less than the resale price. Dew & Co., however, pledged not to sell the tyres for less than what they would retail for. Dunlop appears to be a third party in the contract between Self Ridge and Dew & Co. and when Selfridge sold the tyres not in the amount decided, Dunlop sued and claimed damages. The judge, in this case, delivered judgment in favour of Dunlop saying that Selfridge could not be made bound.

The Indian View on The Doctrine of Privity of Contract

In India, the privity of contract rule has also been in effect. The common law concept of privity of contract has been broadly applicable in India, even if the definition of consideration is broader under the Indian Contract Act than it is under English law. This means that only a party to the contract is authorized to enforce the same.

The Privy Council's ruling in Jamna Das v. Ram Avtar, wherein A borrowed Rs. 40,000 by executing a mortgage on her Zamindari in favour of B, provides the authority for the rule's applicability in India. A then sold the property to C for 44,000 of the purchase price so that C might, if he saw fit, repay the mortgage. A & B's agreement did not include C, hence B's attempt to recoup the mortgage money was unsuccessful.

The defendant allegedly assured his vendor that he would reimburse the mortgagee, according to the Privy Council. The mortgagee might not use something to which he was not a party. He and the buyer did not agree, and the buyer is not obligated to settle B's mortgage debt right away.

The proprietor of the circus lodged an order with the plaintiff-appellant in another case, Advertising Bureau v. C. T. Devaraj, asking the plaintiff to create advertisements for the circus. There was no agreement between the plaintiff advertiser and the circus financier. The agreement between the financier and the owner of the circus did not include the advertisement. The advertiser's complaint against the financer was dismissed due to the lack of privity of contract between the two parties.

Importance of Consideration in the Doctrine of Privity of Contract

The existence of a valid Contract is one of the most important elements that is required in the Doctrine of Privity of Contract. According to Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act 1872 consideration is considered to the base to form a valid contract. A contract without a valid consideration is void from the very beginning. According to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract, a party who has provided valid consideration only has the right to sue or to compel another party to discharge the promises of a contract.

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract

According to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract, only the two parties that are involved in a contract are allowed to sue the other party for non-performance of the liabilities and obligations that are discussed in the contract, but there are also exceptions to under which a third party can also sue for breach of contract. The exceptions to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract are given below-

1. A person who is a beneficiary of a contract

If a contract is been made between two parties with a valid consideration and acceptance with a motive to benefit a third party, in a situation when the contract fails to be performed by either party to a contract then the third party for whose benefit the contract was entered into can sue the others for breach of contract.

This exception was best explained in the case of Muhammad Rustam Ali Khan v. Husaini Begum

In this case, the plaintiff Husainin Begum was married to Khwaja Muhammad Khan, son of the defendant. And the plaintiff has to be paid Rs. 500 as Kharch-i-pandan as given under the Mohammedan law. The defendant enforced the agreement at the time of the marriage. And the date to execute the agreement was within 6 years of their marriage.

Where the plaintiff, namely Husaini Begam, who was a Mohammedan lady, married the son of the defendant, namely Khwaja Muhammad Khan. As per Islamic customs, the plaintiff was to be given Rs. 500 as Kharch-i-Pandan. The agreement was enforced by the defendant at the time of marriage. And after 13 years of being married she abandoned her husband’s house. The plaintiff then sued the defendant for Kharch-i-Pandan.

The Court in this case delivered that the plaintiff has the right to enforce the contract. The court in this case said that the Doctrine of Privity of Contract would not apply as the circumstances of the cases are not the same.

2. Conduct, Acknowledgement or Admission

Under the Doctrine of Estoppel, there are situations under which one party to a contract can be held liable for the actions done by them. If he acknowledges the claims of others. This was used in the case of Narayani Devi v. Tagore Commercial Corporation Ltd.

3. Provisions for marriage or maintenance

When the rights of family members come into consideration this acts as an exception to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract. This comes into effect when a family member does not get any specific share from the testator.

Illustration

If A owner of the property writes in his will and divides his property in equal shares to three of his sons on the condition that after A dies the sons have to pay an amount of Rs. 10000 to the daughter of A that is C and later if the sons fails to pay the amount to C monthly than in this case C can sue the three sons.

4. Provisions under Family Settlement

A stranger who is not a party to a contract and who receives benefits from it under a family arrangement may bring a claim on his behalf as a beneficiary of the agreement.

5. Provision of Estoppel

Promissory estoppel principles may allow a third party to pursue remedies against a promisor. The third party would have to prove each of the components of promissory estoppels to prevail. If permitted by statute, an individual who is not a party to the contract may continue to pursue legal action. Therefore, if third-party risks are covered by the insurance policy, a third party who is not a party to the contract may obtain compensation from the insurance company under the insurance statutes.

6. Invovlemment of Agency

The ruling in this case is that if one of the parties enters into a contract acting as an agent, the principal or the agent, but not both, may file a lawsuit to enforce the terms of the agreement.

The Doctrine of Privity of Contract Case Law

Tweddle vs. Atkinson

Fact about the Case; In the classic case of Tweddle vs. Atkinson, the court rejected the plaintiff's breach of contract claim. The key issue was the legality of a contract between two families in which the son of one parent was promised an amount of money if he married the daughter of the other father.

Judgement of the Case; The Supreme court determined that the plaintiff, the son, lacked legal standing to enforce the contract. The basis for this finding was that he was not a party to the contract. The arrangement was reached only between the two dads, with the son not privy to the conversations or negotiations. As a result, he was unable to assert his contract-related rights and benefits.

Conclusion

This article talks about the Doctrine of Privity of Contract, according to which only a party to a contract can sue the other party for non-performance of promises and obligations that have been decided in a contract. Also, the articles mentioned the exceptions to the doctrine under some circumstances the third party who is not a partner to a contract can sue the parties to a contract if they have a link to the objective of the contract or the contract is in the ambit of family laws.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is doctrine of privity of contract

According to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract, only a party to a contract can sue the other party for non-performance of promises and obligations that have been decided in a contract

2. What are the two types of privity?

The two types of privity are Vertical and Horizontal

3. What is the meaning of Privy in law?

Privy in law means one party who acquires interest in a subject matter.

4. Example of Privity of Contract?

An example of the Privity of a Contract is the relationship between the Landlord and the tenant

5. What are remedies for Privity of Contract?

Only the party to a contract can sue the other party for non-performance of a promise,

6. What are the exceptions to privity of contract?

There are exceptions to the idea of privity of contract, which enables a third party to sue in specific situations. The exclusions include trust and property exceptions, contract assignment, and third-party insurance exceptions.

7. How does the Doctrine of Privity apply in the context of intellectual property licensing agreements?

In intellectual property licensing, the Doctrine of Privity generally means that only the licensor and licensee can enforce the license agreement. However, complications arise with sublicensing, where a licensee grants rights to a third party. The original licensor may not have privity with the sublicensee, potentially limiting their ability to enforce license terms directly against sublicensees.

8. How does the Doctrine of Privity interact with the concept of "implied terms" in contracts?

Implied terms are provisions that courts read into contracts even if not explicitly stated. The Doctrine of Privity limits who can enforce these implied terms, just as it limits enforcement of express terms. However, some implied terms, like those based on consumer protection laws, may create rights for non-parties, challenging traditional privity.

9. How does the Doctrine of Privity affect the enforceability of arbitration clauses against non-signatories?

Generally, arbitration clauses are only enforceable against parties to the contract, in line with the Doctrine of Privity. However, some jurisdictions have developed exceptions allowing arbitration clauses to be enforced against or by non-signatories in certain circumstances, such as under agency or estoppel theories.

10. What is the "conditional benefit" principle, and how does it challenge traditional privity?

The conditional benefit principle, recognized in some jurisdictions, suggests that if a third party receives a benefit from a contract conditional on performing certain obligations, they may be bound by those obligations despite not being a party to the contract. This challenges traditional privity by creating obligations for non-parties based on their acceptance of benefits.

11. How does the Doctrine of Privity interact with the concept of "relational contracts"?

Relational contract theory recognizes that some contracts involve long-term, complex relationships that may evolve over time. This can challenge traditional privity by suggesting that rights and obligations may extend beyond the original parties as the relationship develops, potentially including new parties or changing the nature of existing relationships.

12. How does the Doctrine of Privity differ from third-party beneficiary rights?

While the Doctrine of Privity restricts contract enforcement to the parties involved, third-party beneficiary rights allow certain non-parties to enforce a contract if it was explicitly made for their benefit. This is an exception to the privity rule and varies by jurisdiction.

13. How does the Doctrine of Privity affect assignment of contracts?

Assignment of contracts is an exception to the Doctrine of Privity. It allows a party to transfer their rights (but not obligations) under a contract to a third party. This doesn't violate privity because the original parties remain bound, while only the benefit is transferred.

14. What is the "agency exception" to the Doctrine of Privity?

The agency exception allows an agent, acting on behalf of a principal, to create a contract between the principal and a third party. This doesn't violate privity because the agent is not considered a party to the contract; they merely facilitate its creation between the principal and the third party.

15. What is the "narrow" view of privity, and how does it differ from the "broad" view?

The narrow view of privity strictly adheres to the principle that only parties to a contract can enforce it. The broad view, adopted in some jurisdictions, allows for more exceptions and is more willing to recognize third-party rights in certain circumstances, such as when the contract clearly intends to benefit a third party.

16. Can you explain how the Doctrine of Privity applies in the context of insurance contracts?

In insurance contracts, the Doctrine of Privity traditionally meant that only the policyholder could claim against the insurer, not third-party beneficiaries. However, many jurisdictions have created exceptions for insurance, allowing third-party claimants to directly sue insurers in certain cases, especially in liability insurance.

17. What is the "consideration" aspect of privity, and why is it important?

Consideration refers to something of value exchanged between parties in a contract. The privity doctrine is closely linked to consideration because traditionally, only those who provided consideration could enforce the contract. This reinforces the idea that contractual rights and obligations are limited to the parties involved.

18. How does the Doctrine of Privity apply in the context of blockchain and smart contracts?

Blockchain and smart contracts challenge traditional privity concepts by creating self-executing agreements that may involve multiple parties or autonomous systems. The decentralized nature of these technologies raises questions about who the actual parties to the contract are and how privity should be applied in this context.

19. How does the Doctrine of Privity apply in the context of letters of comfort or letters of support?

Letters of comfort or support, often used in financial transactions, create challenges for privity. While they may not create direct contractual obligations, courts in some jurisdictions have found ways to make them enforceable, either by interpreting them as contracts or by applying estoppel principles, thus potentially extending obligations beyond the strict confines of privity.

20. What is the Doctrine of Privity of Contract?

The Doctrine of Privity of Contract is a fundamental principle in contract law that states only parties to a contract can enforce its terms or sue for breach. This means that third parties, even if they might benefit from the contract, generally cannot enforce it or be bound by its obligations.

21. How does the Doctrine of Privity affect the concept of "piercing the corporate veil"?

While not directly related, both concepts deal with separating legal entities. Privity limits contract enforcement to the parties involved, while piercing the corporate veil allows courts to disregard the separate legal personality of a corporation. In both cases, courts may make exceptions to strict legal separations in the interest of justice.

22. Can you explain the historical origins of the Doctrine of Privity?

The Doctrine of Privity originated in English common law during the 19th century. It was firmly established in the 1861 case of Tweddle v Atkinson, where the court held that a person cannot enforce a contract to which they are not a party, even if the contract was made for their benefit.

23. What are the main criticisms of the Doctrine of Privity?

Critics argue that the Doctrine of Privity can lead to unfair outcomes, particularly when contracts are clearly intended to benefit third parties. It's also seen as inflexible in modern commercial relationships, where complex networks of contracts and subcontracts are common.

24. How has legislation modified the Doctrine of Privity in some jurisdictions?

Many jurisdictions have enacted laws to soften the strict application of privity. For example, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 in the UK allows third parties to enforce contract terms in certain circumstances, effectively creating statutory exceptions to the privity rule.

25. How does the Doctrine of Privity impact class action lawsuits in contract disputes?

The Doctrine of Privity can complicate class action lawsuits in contract disputes because it may limit who can join the class. Only those who are parties to the contract in question would typically have standing to sue, potentially reducing the size and impact of the class action.

26. How does the Doctrine of Privity relate to the concept of "privity of estate" in property law?

While similar in name, privity of contract and privity of estate are distinct concepts. Privity of contract deals with contractual relationships, while privity of estate refers to the relationship between successive owners of real property. Both concepts limit who can enforce certain rights but in different legal contexts.

27. How does the Doctrine of Privity affect warranties in product liability cases?

The Doctrine of Privity traditionally limited warranty claims to the immediate purchaser of a product, preventing subsequent owners or users from suing the manufacturer for breach of warranty. Many jurisdictions have relaxed this rule, allowing non-purchasers to make warranty claims in product liability cases.

28. What is the "burden of contract" principle, and how does it relate to privity?

The burden of contract principle states that contractual obligations cannot be imposed on third parties who are not party to the contract. This is closely related to privity, as both principles limit the reach of contractual obligations to the parties involved in the agreement.

29. How does the Doctrine of Privity interact with the concept of "privity of knowledge" in evidence law?

While distinct concepts, both deal with limiting the scope of legal relationships. Privity of contract limits who can enforce a contract, while privity of knowledge in evidence law can limit the admissibility of certain evidence to proceedings involving the same parties. Both concepts aim to maintain fairness and consistency in legal proceedings.

30. How does the Doctrine of Privity apply in the context of electronic contracts and online transactions?

Electronic contracts and online transactions often involve multiple parties (e.g., buyer, seller, platform provider), challenging traditional notions of privity. Courts and legislators have had to adapt privity principles to address issues like platform liability and the enforceability of terms of service against users who may not have directly contracted with the service provider.

31. What is the "contract for the benefit of another" doctrine, and how does it relate to privity?

The "contract for the benefit of another" doctrine, recognized in some jurisdictions, allows a third-party beneficiary to enforce a contract made explicitly for their benefit. This doctrine creates an exception to strict privity by recognizing that some contracts are intended to benefit non-parties.

32. What is the "assumption of responsibility" doctrine, and how does it relate to privity?

The assumption of responsibility doctrine, developed in some jurisdictions, allows a party to be held liable to a third party if they've assumed responsibility towards that third party, even without a direct contractual relationship. This doctrine creates a duty of care that can bypass traditional privity limitations.

33. How does the Doctrine of Privity affect the enforceability of exclusion clauses against third parties?

Traditionally, the Doctrine of Privity meant that exclusion clauses in a contract couldn't be enforced against third parties who weren't party to the contract. However, some jurisdictions have developed exceptions, such as the "contractual chain" theory, to allow the enforcement of exclusion clauses against certain third parties in specific circumstances.

34. What is the "joint promisee" rule in relation to the Doctrine of Privity?

The joint promisee rule states that when a promise is made to two or more people jointly, they must all join in any action to enforce the promise. This rule respects privity by ensuring that only those who are parties to the promise can enforce it, but requires all parties to act together.

35. How does the Doctrine of Privity interact with the concept of novation?

Novation is the process of substituting a new contract for an old one, often involving a change in parties. While it might seem to violate privity, novation actually respects it by creating a new contract with new parties, rather than allowing a third party to enforce the original contract.

36. What is the "multi-party contract" approach, and how does it relate to privity?

The multi-party contract approach suggests that in complex transactions involving multiple parties, all participants should be considered parties to a single, overarching contract. This approach challenges traditional notions of privity by expanding the definition of who is considered a party to the contract.

37. What is the "network of contracts" theory, and how does it challenge traditional privity?

The network of contracts theory suggests that in complex commercial relationships, courts should consider the entire network of related contracts rather than viewing each contract in isolation. This approach challenges traditional privity by recognizing the interconnected nature of modern business relationships.

38. What is the difference between vertical and horizontal privity?

Vertical privity refers to the relationship between parties in a distribution chain (e.g., manufacturer to retailer to consumer). Horizontal privity involves the relationship between the original parties to a contract and third parties. Both concepts are relevant in determining who can enforce contractual warranties.

39. How does the Doctrine of Privity impact letters of credit in international trade?

Letters of credit, common in international trade, involve multiple parties and seem to violate privity. However, they're structured as a series of separate contracts between different pairs of parties (e.g., buyer-bank, bank-seller), each adhering to privity while facilitating a complex transaction.

40. How does the Doctrine of Privity apply in the context of corporate groups and parent-subsidiary relationships?

The Doctrine of Privity generally treats each company in a corporate group as a separate legal entity, meaning contracts made by one company don't automatically bind others in the group. However, exceptions may apply in cases of agency relationships, fraud, or where courts are willing to "pierce the corporate veil."

41. How does the Doctrine of Privity apply in construction contracts with multiple subcontractors?

In construction contracts, the Doctrine of Privity can create challenges when there are multiple subcontractors. Generally, subcontractors don't have a direct contractual relationship with the property owner, which can complicate liability and payment issues. Many jurisdictions have developed specific rules or exceptions for construction contracts to address these challenges.

42. How does the Doctrine of Privity apply in the context of sovereign immunity and government contracts?

Government contracts often involve complex relationships between the state, contractors, and beneficiaries. While privity would normally limit enforcement to the direct parties, sovereign immunity doctrines and specific statutory provisions can further complicate who can enforce these contracts and under what circumstances.

43. What is the "trust exception" to the Doctrine of Privity?

The trust exception allows a third-party beneficiary to enforce a contract if the contracting parties intended to create a trust for the benefit of that third party. This creates a fiduciary relationship, allowing the beneficiary to enforce the trust despite not being a party to the original contract.

44. What is the "collateral contract" exception to the Doctrine of Privity?

A collateral contract is a separate agreement that coexists with the main contract. It can sometimes be used to circumvent privity by creating a new, separate contract between a third party and one of the original contracting parties, thus giving the third party enforceable rights.

45. What is the "transferred loss" exception to the Doctrine of Privity?

The transferred loss exception, recognized in some jurisdictions, allows a party to recover damages on behalf of a third party who has suffered loss as a result of a breach of contract. This exception is based on the idea that the contracting party has "transferred" their right to claim damages to the third party who actually suffered the loss.

46. What is the "principled exception" approach to privity, and how does it work?

The principled exception approach, adopted in some jurisdictions, allows courts to create exceptions to the privity rule on a case-by-case basis when strict adherence would lead to injustice. This approach provides flexibility but can lead to uncertainty in the application of privity.

47. What is the "circumvention of privity" technique, and when might it be used?

Circumvention of privity refers to legal strategies used to work around the limitations imposed by the privity doctrine. This might include creating collateral contracts, using the concept of agency, or structuring agreements as deeds rather than simple contracts. These techniques are used when parties want to extend contractual rights or obligations to non-parties.

48. What is the "tort exception" to the Doctrine of Privity, and how does it work?

The tort exception allows a non-party to a contract to sue in tort (e.g., negligence) even if they couldn't sue for breach of contract due to lack of privity. This exception recognizes that duties in tort can exist independently of contractual relationships and can provide remedies to third parties affected by contractual performance.

49. What is the "common intention" approach to privity, and how does it work?

The common intention approach, adopted in some jurisdictions, allows courts to look at the common intention of the contracting parties to determine if they meant to confer enforceable rights on a third party. If such an intention is found, the court may allow the third party to enforce the contract, creating an exception to strict privity.

50. What is the "direct performance" exception to privity, and when does it apply?

The direct performance exception, recognized in some jurisdictions, allows a third party to enforce a contract if the performance was to be rendered directly to them, even if they weren't a party to the contract. This exception recognizes that in some cases, the third party's interest in the contract is so direct that they should have enforcement rights.

51. What is the "transferred benefit" rule, and how does it relate to privity?

The transferred benefit rule, recognized in some jurisdictions, allows a party to enforce a contract on behalf of a third party who has received the benefit of the contract. This rule creates an exception to strict privity by allowing enforcement based on the transfer of a contractual benefit, rather than the transfer of the contract itself.

52. How does the Doctrine of Privity apply in the context of multimodal transportation contracts?

Multimodal transportation contracts often involve multiple carriers and intermediaries, challenging traditional privity. Many jurisdictions have developed specific rules or conventions to address these complex relationships, often allowing certain claims to be made against parties who might not have direct contractual relationships under strict privity rules.