Editing Privity of contract (section)

===Third-party beneficiaries===
In [[Australia]], it has been held that [[third-party beneficiaries]] may uphold a promise made for its benefit in a contract of insurance to which it is not a party (''[[Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v. McNiece Bros Pty Ltd]]'' (1988) 165 CLR 107).<ref>High Court of Australia, [http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1988/44.html Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd &#91;1988&#93; HCA 44; (1988) 165 CLR 107 (8 September 1988)]</ref> The decision in ''Trident'' had no clear [[ratio decidendi|ratio]], and did not create a general exemption to the doctrine of privity in Australia.

[[Queensland]], the [[Northern Territory]] and [[Western Australia]] have all enacted statutory provisions to enable third party beneficiaries to enforce contracts, and limited the ability of contracting parties to vary the contract after the third party has relied on it. In addition, section 48 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) allows third-party beneficiaries to enforce contracts of insurance.

Although damages are the usual remedy for the breach of a contract for the benefit of a third party, if damages are inadequate, [[specific performance]] may be granted (''[[Beswick v. Beswick]]'' [1968] AC 59).

The issue of third-party beneficiaries has appeared in cases where a [[stevedore]] has claimed it is covered under the exclusion clauses in a [[bill of lading]]. In order for this to succeed, three factors must be made out:
* The bill of lading must clearly intend to benefit the third party.
* It is clear that when the [[common carrier|carrier]] contracts with the [[consignor]], it also contracts as an [[agency (law)|agent]] of the stevedore. That is, either the carrier must have had authority by the stevedore to act on its behalf, or the stevedore must later ratify (endorse) the actions of the carrier.
* Any difficulties with consideration moving from the stevedores must be made out.

The last issue was explored in ''[[New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v. A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd]]'' [1975] AC 154, where it was held that the stevedores had provided consideration for the benefit of the exclusion clause by the discharge of goods from the ship.

[[New Zealand]] has enacted the [[Contracts Privity Act 1982]], which enables third parties to sue if they are sufficiently identified as beneficiaries by the contract, and in the contract it is expressed or implied they should be able to enforce this benefit. An example case of not being "sufficiently identified" is that of ''[[Field v Fitton]]'' (1988).