Contract law by ewan mckendrick

The Contracts Act 1999 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that significantly reformed the common law doctrine of privity and thereby [removed] one of the most universally disliked and criticised blots on the legal landscape.
The second rule of the doctrine of privity, that a third party could not enforce a contract for which he had not provided consideration, had been widely criticised by lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary.
Proposals for reform via an act of Parliament were first made in 1937 by the Law Revision Committee in their Sixth Interim Report.
No further action was taken by the government until the 1990s, when the Law Commission proposed a new draft bill in 1991, and presented their final report in 1996.
The bill was introduced to the House of Lords in December 1998, and moved to the House of Commons on 14 June 1999.
It received royal assent on 11 November 1999, coming into force immediately as the Contracts Act 1999.

Ewan Gordon McKendrick is Professor of English Private Law at the University of Oxford.
He is known for his academic work on the law of contract, as well as publications in the law of unjust enrichment and commercial law.

Incorporation of terms in English law is the inclusion of terms in contracts formed under English law in such a way that the courts recognise them as valid.
For a term to be considered incorporated it must fulfil three requirements.
Firstly, notice of the terms should be given before or during the agreement of the contract.
Secondly, the terms must be found in a document intended to be contractual.
Thirdly, reasonable steps must be taken by the party who forms the term to bring it to the attention of the other party.
The rules on incorporating terms in English law are almost all at a common law level.

Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees.
Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties.
This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit.
Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable.
The leading case is now the Supreme Court decision in Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, which emphasised the concept of enterprise risk.