LW201 – LAW OF CONTRACT I

Topic 7 – Privity of Contract

Week 9
Tutorial/Discussion Forum 7
Solution

Issue:

Whether Major Lazer has any legal rights under contract law or not?

Rule:

 Amino Qalovaki v Carpenters (Fiji)

 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge [1915] AC 847.
 Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] EWHC QB J57

Application:

Davo, the owner of TrustEm Electronics had promised Major Lazer ‘that the television set is of
superb working quality because everything manufactured by LifesGoodWhenThingsWork is of
the highest quality’. Major Lazer had bought the television set for 50,000 vatu and had taken it
home and installed it, after 5 minutes of watching television, the television set stops working,
and smoke appears from behind the television set. Davo says that he is not responsible for
whether the television set actually works or not as he is a retailer and advises Major Lazer to sue
LifesGoodWhenThingsWork, as it is the company that manufactured the television set. Under
the Doctrine of Privity of Contract, the contractual agreement is binding only between the parties
of the agreement. Thus, only a party to a contract can be sued and not a third party. In reference
to Amino Qalovaki v Carpenters (Fiji), the Court had held that the Plaintiff cannot sue the
defendant (repairer) as the contract was actually between the insurance company and the
defendant. Similarly, Major Lazer cannot sue the manufacturer, LifesGoodWhenThingsWork as
the promise was made by Davo (the owner of TrustEm Electronics) and the manufacturer is a
third party in this case.

Conclusion:

This study source was downloaded by 100000803459690 from CourseHero.com on 04-20-2023 21:56:24 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/199845997/LW201-tutorial-7-solutionsdocx/
 Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, Major Lazer cannot sue the manufacturer,
LifesGoodWhenThingsWork. Since, LifesGoodWhenThingsWork was not a party in the
contractual agreement made between Davo and Major Lazer and secondly, Davo had made a
promise and not LifesGoodWhenThingsWork. Under privity of contract, major lazer can sue
TrustEm Electronics.

Davo says that he is not responsible for whether the television set actually works or not as he is a
retailer and advises Major Lazer to sue LifesGoodWhenThingsWork, as it is the company that
manufactured the television set.

Under the Doctrine of Privity of Contract, the contractual agreement is binding only between the
parties of the agreement. Thus, only a party to a contract can be sued and not a third party.

In reference to Amino Qalovaki v Carpenters (Fiji), the Court had held that the Plaintiff cannot
sue the defendant (repairer) as the contract was actually between the insurance company and the
defendant. Similarly, Major Lazer cannot sue the manufacturer, LifesGoodWhenThingsWork as
the promise was made by Davo (the owner of TrustEm Electronics) and the manufacturer is a
third party in this case.

Conclusion:

Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, Major Lazer cannot sue the manufacturer,
LifesGoodWhenThingsWork. Since LifesGoodWhenThingsWork was not a party in the
contractual agreement made between Davo and Major Lazer and secondly, Davo had made a
promise and not LifesGoodWhenThingsWork. Under privity of contract, major lazer can sue
TrustEm Electronics.

This study source was downloaded by 100000803459690 from CourseHero.com on 04-20-2023 21:56:24 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/199845997/LW201-tutorial-7-solutionsdocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)