The relation between non-opposable and inoperative contracts

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD. Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

2 Department of Private Law, faculty of law, Qom university, Qom, Iran

Abstract

In accordance with privity of contract, a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations to third parties; but, as a legal reality, a contract is invocable against third parties, and they cannot ignore its effect. The reverse of the mentioned situation is, also, true and third parties cannot affect a contract. Nonetheless, there is a borderline state in which a contract affects the third party’s potential right, although it does not directly confer rights or impose obligations. There are two theories to set out this situation: inoperativeness and non-opposability. Jurists have different opinions about the instances of, and the relation between, them. This article claims that they are the same. They both are created to protect the rights of third parties; in both states, the contract has effects between contracting parties and has no effect to third parties. Applying the third party’s right, according to circumstances, can dissolve the contract or does not affect it.

Keywords

References

Abraham, Kennth S. (1996). A Theory of Insurance policy Interpreration, Michigan Law Rewiew, Vol. 121, No.4, pp. 531-569.
Burton, Steven J. (2009) Elements of Contract Interpretation, New York: Oxford University Press.
D.k.Srustrova. (1998) Modernization of Inusrance Concepts in China”, Canberra Law Review, Vol. 4, No.1, pp.231-246.
Dudi Shwartez (2008)”Interpretation and Disclosure In Insurance Contracts”, Loyola Consumrt Law Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.105-154.
Ivamy, Hardy E. (1979) Marine Insurance, London: Butterworths.
Fisher, James M. (1995) ”Why Are Insurance Contract Subject to Specail Rule of Interpretation: Texr Versus Context”, Arizona State Law Journal, No.24, pp.995-1067.
Harof Watson (2006) The Sophiticated Assured Excption To The Doctorine Of Contra Proferentem In Marine Insurance Law, Newsletter, New York,Committee on Marine Insurance and General Averge.
Horton, Divid (2009) ”Flipping The Script Contra Proferentem And Standard Form Contracts”, University of Coloardo Law Review, Vol. 80, pp.1-46.
Miller,David S. (1998) ”Insurance As Contract: The Argument For Aboning The Ambiguty Doctrine”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 88, No. 8, pp.1849-1872.
Mustill,Sir Michael J. Gilman,Jonathan C.B. (ed) (1981) Arnould’s Law of Marine Insurance And Average, London: Steven & Sons.
Spicer,.Whyle W. (1991) ”CH-CH-CHanges:Stumbling Towards The Reasonable Expection of The Assured in Marine Insurance”, Tulane Law Review, Vol. 66, pp. 457-477.
Swisher,Peter N. (1991) ”Judicial Rationales in Insurance Law: Dusting Off the Formal for the Function”, Ohio State Law Journal, Vol: 52, No. 4., pp. 1037-1074.
Swisher, Peter N. (1996) ”Judicial Interpretation of Insurance Contract Disputes: Toward a Realistic Middle Ground Approach”, Ohio State Law Journal, Vol.57, pp. 543-636.
Torbert,Preston M. (2014) A Study of the Risks of Contract Ambiguty, Master degree, University School of International Law.
Martorana,Vincent R. (2014) A Guide to Contract Interpretation, 1ndEd.London: ReedSmith.
Ware, Tephen J. (1998) ”A Critique of the Resonabble Expectation Doctorine“, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp.1461-1493.
Wilkerson, Jared (2011) ”Adudicating Insurance Policy Disputes: A Critique of Preofessor Randall 's Proposal to Abondon Contract Law”, Loyola Consurmer Law Review, Vol. 23, No.3, pp. 294-357.
 
Document and Cases:
Adrian Associates, General Contractors v. National Surety Co. 638 S.W.2d 138 (rex. Ct App. 1982).
Atlantic Ca. Ins. Co. v. Value Waterproofing, Inc. 918 F.Supp.2d 243, S.D.N.Y. 2013. January 15, 201
A/S Ocean v. Black Sea &Baltic General Ins. Co Ltd.[1935]51 LL.L.Rep.305(A.C).
Birrell v. Dryer[1884]9 App.cas.345(H.L.)(appeal taken from Scot).
Gibson v. Government Employees Ins. Co. 208 Cal. Rptr. 511, 516 (Ct. App. 1984).
Garcia v.Exhibition Foods, (1986)184 Cal.App.3d.
Hart v.Standard Mar.Ins.Co.(1889) 22 Q.B.D.499
Marine Trasit Crop v. Nothwestren Fire &Marine Ins. Co, 2F. Supp.489.492(E.D.N.Y.1933).
Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 126 (1876) (citing I Hargrave Law Tracts 78 (1787).
Olin Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co. 704 F.3d 89 C.A.2 (N.Y.), 2012. December 19, 2012.
Pittson Company Ultrama America v. Allianz Insurance Company, 124F.3d 508(3d Cir.1997).
Senior Housing Capital, LLC v. SHP Senior Housing Fund, LLC Not Reported in A.3d, 2013 WL1955012 Del.Ch.2013
 
Journal of Legal Studies
Volume 12, Issue 4 - Serial Number 38
January 2021
Pages 205-234

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics