IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxjlsj/v41y2021i3p803-832..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Privity: Rights, Standing, and the Road Not Taken

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy Liau

Abstract

Privity is generally understood as a rule comprising a burdens limb and a more controversial benefits or ‘rights’ limb. This rendition of privity is too simplistic. Privity has multiple aspects, but its underlying complexity has been obscured by an overwhelming focus on ‘rights’, explaining in part the persistent unclarity plaguing the area. In this article, I argue that an elision of concepts has hampered our understanding of privity and its reform. The literature on contractual rights to performance and secondary rights to damages for their breach is legion. By contrast, standing, as a separate and distinct concept, has been overlooked. These are concepts that need to be more clearly differentiated. While not a panacea to resolve all issues, it is a necessary step to a firmer handle over the distinct issues at stake, and to opening up a novel angle to privity reform—third-party standing—the road not taken.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy Liau, 2021. "Privity: Rights, Standing, and the Road Not Taken," Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 803-832.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:41:y:2021:i:3:p:803-832.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ojls/gqab004
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:41:y:2021:i:3:p:803-832.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ojls .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.