In the past, the major drawback to

In the past, the major drawback to contract as a cause of action for product liability claims was the privity rule, because it severely limited the class of people who could sue in contract. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act was designed to address this problem, and while it is too early to assess its effects, it should in principle increase the chances of compensation for defective products considerably. However, one possible threat to this is that it is easy for sellers to exclude their contracts from the Act; they need only include an express term to this effect. Top law firms are advising clients to do so as routine when they issue a contract. Of course in principle a buyer can refuse to agree to the exclusion term, but given that in many consumer transactions, the consumer simply accepts the terms offered by the seller, this could seriously restrict the practical value of the Act, so that many third parties will still be unable to sue in contract.

ในอดีตที่ผ่านมาอุปสรรคสำคัญในการทำสัญญาเป็นสาเหตุของการดำเนินการเรียกร้องความรับผิดต่อสินค้าถูกกฎลับเพราะมัน จำกัด อย่างรุนแรงระดับของคนที่จะฟ้องในสัญญา สัญญา (สิทธิของบุคคลที่สาม) ถูกออกแบบมาเพื่อแก้ไขปัญหานี้และในขณะที่มันเร็วเกินไปที่จะประเมินผลกระทบของมันก็ควรในหลักการเพิ่มโอกาสของการชดเชยสำหรับผลิตภัณฑ์ที่มีข้อบกพร่องมาก แต่หนึ่งในภัยคุกคามที่เป็นไปได้ในการนี​​้ก็คือว่ามันเป็นเรื่องง่ายสำหรับผู้ขายที่จะไม่รวมสัญญาของพวกเขาจากพระราชบัญญัติ; พวกเขาจำเป็นต้องใช้เพียงรวมระยะด่วนดังต่อไปนี้ บริษัท กฎหมายชั้นนำจะให้คำปรึกษากับลูกค้าที่จะทำเพื่อให้เป็นประจำเมื่อพวกเขาออกสัญญา แน่นอนในหลักการที่ผู้ซื้อสามารถปฏิเสธที่จะเห็นด้วยกับคำยกเว้น แต่กำหนดว่าในการทำธุรกรรมของผู้บริโภคจำนวนมากของผู้บริโภคเพียงแค่ยอมรับเงื่อนไขที่นำเสนอโดยผู้ขายนี้อย่างจริงจังสามารถ จำกัด ค่าจริงของพระราชบัญญัติเพื่อให้บุคคลที่สามจำนวนมาก จะยังคงไม่สามารถที่จะฟ้องในสัญญา

Results (English) 1:

In the past, the major drawback to contract as a cause of action for product liability claims was the privity rule, because it severely limited the class of people who could sue in contract. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act was designed to address this problem, and while it is too early to assess its effects, it should in principle increase the chances of compensation for defective products considerably. However, one possible threat to this is that it is easy for sellers to exclude their contracts from the Act; they need only include an express term to this effect. Top law firms are advising clients to do so as routine when they issue a contract. Of course in principle a buyer can refuse to agree to the exclusion term, but given that in many consumer transactions, the consumer simply accepts the terms offered by the seller, this could seriously restrict the practical value of the Act, so that many third parties will still be unable to sue in contract.In the past an important obstacle in the contract as to the cause of action, liability claims against secret rules, it will be because of it. Severely limit the level of people to sue on the contract (rights of third parties) is designed to solve this problem, and while it is too soon to evaluate the impact that it should, in principle, increase the chances of compensation for a defective product. But one of the possible threats in this regard is that it is easy for a vendor that their contracts will not be included in the Act; they require just a quick stage include the following: Leading law firm is consulting with the customer to do so on a regular basis when they issued the contract. Of course, in principle, the buyer can refuse to agree with words, except that in a consumer transaction, many consumers simply accept the terms offered by the seller, this can seriously limit the actual value of the Act so that a third party will still not be able to sue on the contract.

Results (English) 2:

In the past, the major drawback to contract as a cause of action for product liability claims was the privity rule, because it severely limited the class of people who could sue in contract. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act was designed to address. this problem, and while it is too early to assess its effects, it should in principle increase the chances of compensation for defective products considerably. However, one possible threat to this is that it is easy for sellers to exclude their contracts from the Act; they need only include an express term to this effect. Top law firms are advising clients to do so as routine when they issue a contract. Of course in principle a buyer can refuse to agree to the exclusion term, but given that in many consumer transactions. , the consumer simply accepts the terms offered by the seller, this could seriously restrict the practical value of the Act, so that many third parties will still be unable to sue in contract. In the past, a major obstacle to the contract is the cause. The action claims product liability rules secret because it severely limited the level of people to sue on the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act was designed to address this issue and while it's too soon. impact assessment, it should, in principle, increase the chances of compensation for the product has many flaws. But one of the possible threat of this is that it is easy for vendors to exclude them from the law of contracts; They need only include the period immediately following the leading law firms are advising clients to do so on a regular basis when they contract. Of course, in principle, the buyer can refuse to agree to the exemption. However, given that the transactions of consumers, many consumers simply accept the terms offered by vendors can seriously limit the actual value of the law for a third lot. Will still not be able to sue on the contract.

Results (English) 3:

In the past the major, drawback to contract as a cause of action for product liability claims was the, privity rule because. It severely limited the class of people who could sue in contract. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act was designed. To address, this problem and while it is too early to assess, its effectsIt should in principle increase the chances of compensation for defective products considerably. However one possible,, Threat to this is that it is easy for sellers to exclude their contracts from the Act; they need only include an express. Term to this effect. Top law firms are advising clients to do so as routine when they issue a contract.Of course in principle a buyer can refuse to agree to the exclusion term but given, that in many, consumer transactions. The consumer simply accepts the terms offered by the seller this could, seriously restrict the practical value of, the Act. So that many third parties will still be unable to sue in contract.

.In the past, the major obstacle in the contract is the cause of the claim the product liability rules was secret because it limits the level of people to sue severely in the contract. Contracts (rights of a third party).But one of the possible threats in this is that it is easy for the seller to exclude their contracts from the law;They need only include the express company follows the law leading to consultation with customers to do so as in when they leave the contract. Of course, in principle, the buyer can refuse to agree with คำยก exception.Co., Ltd. the actual value of the act so that third-party). Will still be unable to sue in the contract.