Since this topic is more likely to feature as an essay than as a problem, these debates have already been touched upon but further reading is suggested below.

1. The need for reform

The arguments are rehearsed in the Law Commission’s 1996 Report and the previous judicial dissatisfaction can be seen in the speeches of members of the HL in, for example, Beswick v Beswick and Woodar v Wimpey, and Steyn LJ in Darlington BC v Wiltshier Northern. However, in defence of privity see Kincaid, ‘Third Parties: Rationalising a Right to Sue’ [1989] CLJ 243 and Smith ‘Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties: In Defence of the Third Party Rule’ (1997) 17 OJLS 643.

Detailed critique of the Act, its provisions and scope, and the fact that it does not ‘abolish’ privity

Burrows, ‘The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and its Implications for Commercial Contracts’ [2000] LMCLQ 540.

Andrews, ‘Strangers to Justice No Longer: The Reversal of the Privity Rule under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999’ [2001] CLJ 353.

Beale, ‘A Review of the [1999 Act]’ in Burrows and Peel (eds.), Contract Formation and Parties (Oxford University Press, 2010).

2. The broad ground/performance-interest debate

Coote, ‘The Performance Interest: Panatown and the Problem of Loss’ (2001) 117 LQR 81.