In England & Wales and Northern Ireland, the doctrine has been substantially weakened by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, which created a statutory exception to privity, providing, in certain circumstances, third parties the right to enforce terms of contracts to which they are not privy.
1833 saw the case of Price v. Easton, where a contract was made for work to be done in exchange for payment to a third party.
When the third party attempted to sue for the payment, he was held to be not privy to the contract, and so his claim failed.
This issue appeared repeatedly until MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916), a case analogous to Winterbottom v Wright involving a car's defective wheel.
Although his opinion was only law in New York State, the solution he advanced was widely accepted elsewhere and formed the basis of the doctrine of product liability.
In England and Wales, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 provided some reform for this area of law which has been criticised by judges such as Lord Denning and academics as unfair in places.
Since the latter term was for the benefit of someone not party to the contract, the nephew did not believe it was enforceable and so did not perform it, making only one payment of the agreed weekly amount.
The law has been welcomed by many as a relief from the strictness of the doctrine, however it may still prove ineffective in professionally drafted documents, as the provisions of this statute may be expressly excluded by the draftsmen.
[5] The decision in Trident had no clear ratio, and did not create a general exemption to the doctrine of privity in Australia.
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.