Even though the Doctrine of Privity received a lot of criticism, but there are still reasons and

justifications on why this doctrine is still relevant and survived until now. Based on the
principle derives from the Doctrine of Privity which prohibits the third party or a stranger to a
contract to sue or to be sued by the parties to the contract, it can be clearly seen that the right
of the two parties is protected. This is because, as a contract is formed on a joint promise, it
would be unjust to impose liabilities on a party who may not have given his approval to be
bound by the contract. Also, by allowing third parties to enforce contracts would likely
restrict the rights of main parties to the contract to change or abort the contract. Next,
logically, a party that may not have provided the consideration in a contract, cannot have the
power to enforce the contract so does the third party. Lastly, there are also some exceptions
created to help lessen the difficulties faced by the third parties where the party is a personal
representative, guarantees or an agent. Thus, because of these reasons, there is still a need for
the maintenance of this Doctrine of Privity.