Terms & Conditions of courier’s - What’s enforceable and what’s not

[jk2054]

Hello,

I’m wondering what the enforceability of a term that states “people not named in this contract can’t enforce it under third party rights”

If courier’s added this (which some have), do we know what the court’s perspective on this is?

Is the term enforceable, i.e a third party rights claim would fail?

If theres no named party in the contract, does that mean that they cant say persons not named can’t enforce it because no persons are named? (i.e a third party rights claim would succeed)

 

Looked at lots of threads here, as well as a couple of the judgement/transcript we have.

 

 

[dx100uk]

is this a general Q or specific to an existing thread of yours?

dx

[jk2054]

just a general question really on whether or not that simple term would exclude their liability to third parties or not.

[Ethel Street]

Thrid parties seeking to enforce a contract term for their benefit usually base their claim on the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 although alternative legal routes exist.  The 1999 Act does not prevent a business excluding claims brought by third parties.

"No person who is not a party to this Agreement will have any right to enforce it pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999" would be a typical clause. AFAIK it has never been suggested that such clauses are unenforceable. Whether the specific exclusion language you quote is sufficient I couldn't say. It looks as if it has been drafted by the work experience trainee!

The parties to a contract have to be named, or at least identifiable, otherwise it wouldn't be a contract. But they don't have to be named in a generic T&C. The T&C have to be read in conjunction with other documents to understand the contract as a whole.