The law allows for the insertion of arbitration clauses that require parties to submit to certain arbitration procedures in the event of a dispute. [47] The Law Commission initially excluded arbitration clauses from the act, but then amended its bill to allow third parties to seek arbitration. [47] The arbitration clause provisions were not well received when the bill was passed by Parliament and were described as “very chaotic,” “a maze, and “a swamp.” [47] Originally, the Commission proposed to explicitly exclude jurisdiction clauses from the law. [52] However, when the bill was passed by Parliament, this exclusion disappeared, and the explanatory notes to the Act assume that the Act covers jurisdiction clauses. [52] The result of this review is the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) (Scotland) Act 2017, which was passed on 26 July 2017. February 2018. The Act replaces and abolishes the existing common law JQT rules on the establishment and enforcement of contractual rights for the benefit of persons other than the contracting parties. Here, too, the contracting parties may insert a clause that goes beyond that. [42] The Property Standardisation Group has provided appropriate language for the exclusion of third party rights in contracts: under the 2017 CTPRSA, in the event of a breach of the obligation, third parties are entitled to the same remedies to which the parties are entitled (although the parties are free to indicate the remedies available). This is largely similar to the situation in England, although the wording of the 2017 CTPRSA is a bit broader to reflect the fact that Scottish contract law recognises the concept of unilateral promise. Neither act mentions case law.
This has been discussed in England. Can a person with third-party rights decide between two other parties under a construction contract? Subsection 7(1) confirms that the exceptions to the pre-rule of privacy that existed before the 1999 Act continue to apply. This confirms that the law does not implicitly replace the previous protection of the law. [51] Lawyers, the equivalent of English lawyers, belong to the Faculty of Lawyers, which distinguishes between the junior legal adviser and the senior adviser, the latter being called king`s or queen`s counsel. Lawyers specialize in presenting cases before courts with almost exclusive public rights and in providing legal advice. They usually receive instructions indirectly from clients through lawyers, although in many cases they may be informed directly by members of certain professional associations. [Citation needed] In comparison, the Scottish legal system never followed the treaty`s doctrine of privacy, and so there was not the same need for legal provisions to solve the problems faced in England. The rights of third parties have long been recognised in Scotland by the common law doctrine of jus quaesitum tertio (“JQT”), which allowed parties to transfer rights but no obligations to non-contractual third parties. These third-party rights can be particularly useful for group companies that can rely on a contract concluded and apply it for the benefit of the group as a whole, rather than each group company having to conclude individual contracts with suppliers, for example. Of course, we already have some experience with this type of legislation. When the CRTPA came into force in England and Wales in 1999, it was expected that the use of guarantees would decrease.
Interestingly, this did not happen. The TCCM, in its 2005 series of standard forms, explicitly excluded the application of the CRTPA in 1999. There was general uncertainty as to the extent of the rights that could arise from the 1999 CRTPA. Collateral guarantees remained the norm. As part of its broader review of contract law in Scotland, the Scottish Law Commission has conducted a review of this area of law to address concerns that Scottish law lags behind international and, in particular, European reforms in this area. Jurisdictions that have not recognised the rights of third parties in the past, such as England and Wales, have legislated to introduce them; and the legal systems that have recognized them, such as France, have updated and clarified their rules. In the CTPRSA 2017, there is no equivalent provision to § 7 para. 4 HGCRA 1996. It seems likely that in Scotland the wording of Article 108(1) of the 1999 CRTPA would still prevail, but the issue will undoubtedly be negotiated in Scotland at some point. In his blog post Contract (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Bill: the end of collateral guarantees or business as usual? (Contract (third party rights) (Scotland) Bill: the end of collateral guarantees or the status quo? (Contract (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Bill: the end of collateral guarantees or business as usual?, Claire Mills addressed a number of concerns about third party rights prior to the passage of the bill by the Scottish Parliament and discussed whether our industry would now adopt statutory third-party rights rather than guarantee agreements.
With the entry into force of the 2017 law, there are clearly problems regarding the rights of third parties in a construction context that we need to think about now. Certainly, some of the concerns that have been raised about the rights of third parties under the law can be addressed through careful wording. .
Recent Comments