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.

ในอดีตที่ผ่านมา อุปสรรคสำคัญในการทำสัญญาเป็นสาเหตุของการดำเนินการเรียกร้องความรับผิดของสินค้าถูกกฎprivityเพราะมัน ถูกจำกัดอย่างรุนแรงระดับของคนที่จะฟ้องในสัญญา. สัญญา (สิทธิของบุคคลที่สาม) ถูกออกแบบมาเพื่อแก้ไขปัญหานี้และในขณะที่มันเร็วเกินไปที่จะประเมินผลกระทบของมัน มันควรเพิ่มโอกาสของการชดเชยสำหรับผลิตภัณฑ์ที่มีข้อบกพร่อง แต่หนึ่งในภัยคุกคามที่เป็นไปได้ในการนี​​้ก็คือว่ามันเป็นเรื่องง่ายสำหรับผู้ขายที่จะไม่รวมสัญญาของพวกเขาจากพระราชบัญญัติ; พวกเขาจำเป็นต้องใช้ระยะด่วนดังต่อไปนี้ บริษัทกฎหมายชั้นนำจะให้คำปรึกษากับลูกค้าเพื่อให้เป็นรูปแบบเดียวกันเมื่อพวกเขาออกสัญญาให้กับลูกค้า. แน่นอนในหลักการที่ผู้ซื้อสามารถปฏิเสธที่จะเห็นด้วยกับคำยกเว้น แต่กำหนดว่าในการทำธุรกรรมของผู้บริโภคจำนวนมากของผู้บริโภคเพียงแค่ยอมรับเงื่อนไขที่นำเสนอโดยผู้ขายนี้อย่างจริงจังสามารถจำกัด ค่าจริงของพระราชบัญญัติเพื่อให้บุคคลที่สามจำนวนมากยังคงไม่สามารถที่จะฟ้องในสัญญา

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 the cause of the claim, the liability of the privity rule because it severely restricted the level of person to sue on a contract. Contracts (rights of third parties) is designed to solve this problem, and while it is too early to assess the impact of it. It should 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 need to use quick phase as follows: Leading law firm is consulting with the customer so that uniform when they contract out to a customer. 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 is seriously limited. The actual value of the Act so that a third party, many still unable 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. The main obstacle to a contract cause of action, claim, liability rules of privity because of it. Severely restricted class of people to sue on the contract. Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act was designed to address this issue and while it is too early to assess its impact. It should increase the chances of compensation for defective products. But one of the possible threat of this is that it is easy for vendors to exclude them from the law of contracts; They require urgent distance below. Leading Law Firm will consult with customers to provide the same pattern when they promise to customers. 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 truth of the Act to a third party, many still can not afford 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 cause of the contract claim liability of goods were privityเพราะ rule it. Restricted severely levels of people to sue in the contract.Contracts (rights of a third party). Is designed to solve this problem, and while it is too early to assess the impact of it. It should increase the likelihood of compensation for defective products.They need to use the stage immediately following. Company law to consultation with customers to be leading the same form when they leave promises to customers.Of course, in principle, the buyer can refuse to agree with คำยก exception. But the transactions of many consumers of consumers simply accept the offer by the seller, this can seriously limited.