Sutartys trečiojo asmens naudai
Nosevičiūtė, Jolanta |
Rudzinskas, Antanas | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Matkevičius, Algirdas | Recenzentas / Rewiewer |
Gurevičius, Sigitas | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Usonienė, Jūratė | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Kudinavičiūtė, Inga | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Papirtis, Leonas Virginijus | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Pakalniškis, Vytautas | Darbo gynimo komisijos pirmininkas / Thesis Defence Board Chairman |
Normally, the intention of persons who enter into a bilateral contract is that the contractual rights and obligations should attach to themselves alone. Contract is seen as a vinculum iuris binding two parties, and this is true even if they have provided that each of them may discharge his liability by rendering performance to someone else. But contract for benefit of a third party has arrived at exceptions to the rule. Contract for benefit of a third party means that a third party may require performance of a contractual obligation when its right to do so has been expressly agreed upon between the promisor and the promisee, or when such agreement is to be inferred from the purpose of the contract or the circumstances of the case. The third party need not be identified at the time the agreement is concluded. The promisee may by notice to the promisor deprive the third party of the right to performance unless: the third party has received notice from the promisee that the right has been made irrevocable, or the promisor or the promisee has received notice from the third party that the latter accepts the right. The modern law agrees that the parties so as to create an enforceable right in a third person who is a stranger to the contract may conclude a contract. To the modern lawyer this may seem rather obvious, but one should not forget that Roman law was opposed to this idea and that it was only in the XIX century that the numerous restrictions on the use of the third party beneficiary contract were whittled down and a general theory of the institution emerged. European countries: Lithuania, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Switzerland have adopted the rule that a third party can take the benefit of a contract to which he is not a party. This attitude regulates in the rules of law (Civil code). There are many cases, which reflect acceptance of the third party beneficiary contract. But England for a long time had not adopted the said rule. In England was appealed to doctrine of privity of contract. There are many cases, which reflect negation of the third party beneficiary contract. And the privity rule now only has a very limited application following the passing of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.