Also known as: privity of contract · privity · privity doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A requirement that parties share a direct contractual or estate-based relationship to enforce promises running with land or to impose liability for breach of certain duties.
Global Structures sold its leased storage yard to Coastal Development. The original lease required Global to maintain structural supports and resurface the access road. Harbor Builders continued paying rent to Coastal but Global never obtained a release from Harbor. Global remains liable to Harbor for any later breach of the maintenance duties because its obligation rested on privity of contract.
Derek Douglas purchased a newly built home from the original owner five years after construction. The home developed serious foundation cracks traceable to the builder-vendor. Derek sued the builder directly for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The court dismissed the claim because Derek lacked privity with the builder.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Dwight Dorsey began driving across a neighbor's gravel path in 2005. In 2015 he sold his parcel and expressly assigned all interests in the path to Destiny Davis. Davis continued the identical weekly crossings until 2023. The periods of use may be added together to satisfy the prescriptive period because privity existed between Dorsey and Davis.
Devon Drake recorded an agreement granting an online retailer permanent space for parcel lockers on the exterior wall of his shopping center. The retailer held no ownership or leasehold interest in any parcel. The recorded grant created an enforceable servitude even though the retailer and Drake shared no traditional privity relationship.
Harbor Builders assigned its month-to-month lease of a storage yard to Vertex Homes. The lease required resurfacing of the shared access road. Vertex took possession and entered privity of estate with the current landlord. Vertex must perform the resurfacing because the covenant touches and concerns the leased premises and the parties intended it to run.
Darius Dixon bought a car from a dealer. A manufacturing defect caused the steering to fail and injured a bystander. Dixon and the bystander sued the manufacturer in negligence. The manufacturer cannot escape liability by pointing to the absence of any direct contractual relationship with either plaintiff.
Yes. When a transferee enters privity of estate with the landlord, the transferee becomes obligated to perform covenants that touch and concern the leased premises provided the original parties intended the burden to run.
Yes. Periods of successive adverse users may be added together when privity exists between them, such as through an express assignment of interests in the disputed route.
No. Modern authority provides that no privity relationship between the parties is necessary to create a servitude.
Courts are split. Some jurisdictions require privity and therefore deny recovery to subsequent purchasers who lack a direct relationship with the builder-vendor.
No. In products liability based on negligence, the absence of contractual privity is not a defense when the plaintiff is a foreseeable user or bystander.
…of the expected use of the car by persons other than the buyer is the same as that of the manufacturer. And so, his claim to the doctrine of privity should rise no higher than that of the manufacturer. See, e. g., Haut v. Kleene, supra ; Greenberg v. Lorenz, supra ; Ryan v. Progressive Grocery Stores, Inc., supra . The situation…