privity

(redirected from Privity of contract)
Also found in: Dictionary, Legal, Wikipedia.
Related to Privity of contract: Privity of estate

privity,

n the association and knowledge between parties engaged in a legal agreement, especially private information pertinent to the relationship and contract.
References in periodicals archive ?
It is not essential to recovery that there be privity of contract between the person injured and the defendant.
Privity of contract is a doctrine that has not been well loved by judges or academics in modern times.
This practise, however, often losses sight of the principle of privity of contract in terms of which only the parties to a contract are bound by its terms; third parties are not subject to those terms unless they consent to be so bound.
West simply established a cause of action for strict liability in the absence of privity of contract.
As a matter of common sense and fairness, should he not recover for his damage against the bean weigher although he lacked privity of contract with him because the bean weigher had been retained by the seller?
Under a pure privity of contract doctrine, the consumer can only sue the supermarket where the bread was purchased and not the manufacturer that allowed the pin to be in the bread loaf.
The original tenant may be liable for unpaid future rents as a matter of privity of contract if he or she covenanted in the lease to pay them, (107) and assignees who promise, as consideration for their assignment, to pay the landlord directly may be liable as a matter of third-party beneficiary contract.
Undiluted privity of contract makes for predictability, and predictability is what the men who watch the bottom line of commercial litigation like.
no assumption agreement) between the lessor and the successor lessee, the successor is in "privity of estate" with the lessor, but is not in privity of contract.
It has brought about perhaps one of the most radical changes to property law for the past 70 years by stripping privity of contract out of virtually all leases granted on or after January 1,1996.
In this case, the plaintiff alleged no privity of contract or statutory duty on which to premise a duty of care.