Comments on: Wal-Mart Case Raises Issue of Categories of Contract Language http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/07/11/wal-mart-case-categories-of-contract-language/ Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:23:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Jack http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/07/11/wal-mart-case-categories-of-contract-language/comment-page-1/#comment-92697 Jack Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:59:20 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/?p=897#comment-92697 Art, its very common for US contracts to state that the contract confers no rights on persons other than the parties. If the contract requires the other party to indemnify my client's officers, agents, employees etc., or contains a release of those persons, I will sometimes state that those specific provisions, and only those provisions, are for the benefit of the persons to be indemnified or the persons released and that those persons can enforce those provisions directly against the party. I have not come across anyone else who uses a similar exception. Art, its very common for US contracts to state that the contract confers no rights on persons other than the parties. If the contract requires the other party to indemnify my client’s officers, agents, employees etc., or contains a release of those persons, I will sometimes state that those specific provisions, and only those provisions, are for the benefit of the persons to be indemnified or the persons released and that those persons can enforce those provisions directly against the party. I have not come across anyone else who uses a similar exception.

]]> By: Art http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/07/11/wal-mart-case-categories-of-contract-language/comment-page-1/#comment-92676 Art Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:50:28 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/?p=897#comment-92676 I would agree with use of the word "may". What interests me though (with apologies for the off-topic query) is that third parties can have the right to enforce a contract in Californian common law. This was not the case in English common law, though the law was changed by the passing of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. CRoTPA allows parties to an agreement to "opt out" by specifying that third parties may not take the benefit of the contract - is it possible to do the same in Californian law (or US law generally), or are parties stuck with this? I would agree with use of the word “may”.

What interests me though (with apologies for the off-topic query) is that third parties can have the right to enforce a contract in Californian common law. This was not the case in English common law, though the law was changed by the passing of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. CRoTPA allows parties to an agreement to “opt out” by specifying that third parties may not take the benefit of the contract – is it possible to do the same in Californian law (or US law generally), or are parties stuck with this?

]]>