The law of contract is not about only private justice or public regulation; it is clearly concerned with a combination of both of these aspects of contract law in a number of ways. I will discuss this point in relation to the debate concerning privity of contract and whether a third party beneficiary of a contract should have a cause of action against the promisor.

The general rule or 'doctrine,' of privity in contract is that onlyparties to a contract, hence persons 'privy' to it, have rights or liabilities under it. A non-party is a stranger to contract or (reflecting the two-party contract) 'a third party.' It is from this general rule, that the debate surrounding privity of contract, and causes of action for a third party erupts. The debate is a basically two-sided as outlined in Trident1 in the

judgements of Mason CJ, Wilson J, and Brennan J. Mason and Wilson represent the 'radical'2 side of the debate, those who wish to make an exception to the doctrine and not be worried, by allowing parties not privy to the contract to sue upon it. The latter 'conservative' side of the debate is encompassed by the argument of Brennan J in the same case. The conservative argument sanctif

I find the rule of privity in terms of private justice, potentially very unjust. In terms of public regulation, I also find the doctrine of privity to carry with it, a major byproduct of inconvenience, incompatible with the largely business oriented environment of contract. Saying that however I tend to agree with the point of view taken by Brennan J that if the courts were free to 'disregard a fundamental doctrine...an endemic

inconvenience towards the privity rule. In that contract largely exists within a business environment, and the principle-based (the concept of contract as a promise) doctrine of privity is incompatible within such an economic sphere.

It is clear that the law of contract is about both private justice (justice to the parties) and public regulation. The two are inherently intertwined initially by the mere virtue of contract being a law automatically adopting the role of publicly regulating private justice. Bearing this in mind, I will answer the final question as to whether or not a third party beneficiary should have a cause of action against the promisor in contract.

uncertainty would infect the administration of justice.'7 In other words, although I find the pragmatic approach adopted by the radicals to be in many ways just, I feel that the public regulation of private justice would be most effective within a principle-based system. To replace these principles with an open-ended variable approach would indeed be problematic, and contract law would expose itself further to more difficult cases involving questionable right, and liability.

ies the notion of contract as a bargain and wishes to preserve the doctrine of privity, by excluding third parties from the 'exclusive' relationship denying them a cause of action against the promisor.

The combination of private justice, and pu

Some common words found in the essay are:
CJ Wilson, Mason Wilson, , private justice, public regulation, cause action, contract law, third party, doctrine privity, contract private justice, privity contract, contract private, Cement Limited, cause action promisor, law contract private, action promisor, law contract, regulation private justice, McNeice Trident, public regulation private, Contractors Sub-Contractors, Mason CJ,
Approximate Word count = 1235
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)