However, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 introduced a number of allowances and exceptions for ius quaesitum tertio in English law.
Other common-law countries are also making reforms in this area, though the United States is unique in abandoning privity early in the mid-19th century.
There are also two possible ways to explain the functioning of the contractual relationship: either, In either case, a third-party contract differs from agency in that the promisee acts in his own name and for himself, whereas an agent or representative does not.
For third-party rights to come into existence, certain contractual criteria must be met to show an object to benefit: To be enforceable, a ius quaesitum tertio must be irrevocable.
Although there is a presumption that the promisor intends to promote the interests of the third party in this way, if Andrew contracts with Bethany to have a thousand killer bees delivered to the home of Andrew's worst enemy Charlie, then Charlie is still considered to be the intended beneficiary of that contract.
These include all of the traditional basis by which the formation of a contract may be challenged (e.g., lack of capacity, lack of consideration, the statute of frauds) and all of the traditional bases by which non-performance on the contract may be excused (e.g., failure of consideration, impossibility, illegality, frustration of purpose).
If the promisor is owed more than the value of the contract, the beneficiary's recovery will be reduced to nothing (but the third party can never be made to assume an actual debt).
Because the creditor beneficiary is receiving the performance of the promisor in order to fulfill the promisee's debt, the failure of the promisor to perform means that the beneficiary can still sue the promisee to recover the preexisting debt.
In the United States, the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Chapter 6, Sections 133-147, covers third-party beneficiaries.
Under the common law, such suits were barred, but courts have since determined that the promisee can sue for specific performance of the contract, provided that the beneficiary has not already sued the promisor.
Lawrence v. Fox, 1859, decided in the New York Court of Appeals allows a third-party to sue for debt collection.