![]() | Privity in English law has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 23, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that it has been argued that
privity in English law is simply an element of
consideration? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Nice work on this so far. Can you incorporate the cases I've listed in some way? I think it'd be good to have part on contract and tort. Also there's those complicated exclusion clause transfer cases, which I think need to be explained well. And I think that privity is definitely the same thing as consideration (or an inseparable part of the doctrine). What do you think? Wik idea 13:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: Mkativerata
I'm going to review this because the subject matter is up my alley, I have access to a few of the sources, and its been unreviewed for some time now. As an initial comment, it's great to see that the article sticks to secondary sources. In my view, some "legal concept" articles stray well into the territory of original research by directly citing (ie analysing) case law as sources for particular propositions. I will be doing a more detailed review over the next few days. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 02:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Here are my comments - just a few small issues to resolve:
1. Well written
**In what court was Tweddle v Atkinson decided? This might be useful to the reader as it seems to have settled a 200 year dispute.
**”Detel paint” - better as “paint produced by Detel Products”? This is the first time we hear of Detel.
**”An agency relationship is between three parties - A principal...” “A principal” should be decapitalised.
**”an Act/act of Parliament”. When referring to an Act/act generally, as opposed to a specific act, make the capitalisation consistent throughout.
**Likewise, when referring to a specific act (eg “the full provisions of the act” vs “Section 1 of the Act”), capitalise consistently.
**Footnotes 10, 13, 15 and 16 aren't linked to the bibliography but the rest are.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable
3. Coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Images
-- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
All done, and passed. Top stuff. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | Privity in English law has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 23, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that it has been argued that
privity in English law is simply an element of
consideration? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Nice work on this so far. Can you incorporate the cases I've listed in some way? I think it'd be good to have part on contract and tort. Also there's those complicated exclusion clause transfer cases, which I think need to be explained well. And I think that privity is definitely the same thing as consideration (or an inseparable part of the doctrine). What do you think? Wik idea 13:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: Mkativerata
I'm going to review this because the subject matter is up my alley, I have access to a few of the sources, and its been unreviewed for some time now. As an initial comment, it's great to see that the article sticks to secondary sources. In my view, some "legal concept" articles stray well into the territory of original research by directly citing (ie analysing) case law as sources for particular propositions. I will be doing a more detailed review over the next few days. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 02:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Here are my comments - just a few small issues to resolve:
1. Well written
**In what court was Tweddle v Atkinson decided? This might be useful to the reader as it seems to have settled a 200 year dispute.
**”Detel paint” - better as “paint produced by Detel Products”? This is the first time we hear of Detel.
**”An agency relationship is between three parties - A principal...” “A principal” should be decapitalised.
**”an Act/act of Parliament”. When referring to an Act/act generally, as opposed to a specific act, make the capitalisation consistent throughout.
**Likewise, when referring to a specific act (eg “the full provisions of the act” vs “Section 1 of the Act”), capitalise consistently.
**Footnotes 10, 13, 15 and 16 aren't linked to the bibliography but the rest are.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable
3. Coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Images
-- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
All done, and passed. Top stuff. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)