<P> The Act had various consequences--as well as allowing third parties to enforce terms it also made a number of exceptions to the basic rule unnecessary, such as claiming on behalf of another party as seen in Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd (1975) 1 WLR 1468 . It did not repeal or abolish these exceptions, however, and this allows the courts to accept cases based on the old common law exceptions as well as the 1999 Act . The Act specifically allows parties to exempt the provisions of the Act from contracts, allowing them a way out if they so choose . </P> <P> The reaction from the judiciary, legal profession and academia was largely supportive of the Act; the doctrine of privity had long been thought unfair . The act has been criticised somewhat by the construction industry for its refusal to make an exception for complex construction contracts, and for the vagueness of the term "purports to confer a benefit". It is generally accepted, however, that it would be unfair to make an exception for a particular industry, and case law has clarified the meaning of "purports to confer a benefit". </P>

Contract rights of the third parties act 1999