Agreements (Rights Of Third Parties) Act 1999
Subsection (2) provides that section 2(2) of the Unfair Contract Clauses Act 1977, which limits the scope of the exclusion of liability for negligence, does not apply where the third party applies a clause and denounces the negligence of the promiser. Therefore, the third party cannot consider whether such an exclusion clause is inappropriate. There are limited circumstances in which a period giving an advantage to a third party may be changed without the agreement of the third party after the request of a court or arbitrator. The court or arbitrator will allow it if the location of the third party is not established or if the third party is not mentally able to give consent. The Tribunal may also waive approval if it is satisfied that it is not reasonably possible to determine whether or not the third party has actually invoked the provision. If the court waives the third party`s agreement, it may order compensation for the third party or impose such other conditions as it deems appropriate. The parties are free to grant narrow or broad rights to third parties or to exclude the law altogether. The latter approach has been adopted by the authors of some model contracts, such as the Standard Architect Appointment Form in 1999, the ACE Terms of Order, the ICE 7th Edition and the standard JCT forms (although the Joint Contracts Tribunal may change its position as soon as it has had the opportunity to examine the provisions of the Act in more detail). However, the law has limited application to these contracts, since a third party may be allowed to invoke the exclusion or restriction clauses contained therein. Therefore, although they are not named in a bill of lading, but by description or class, stauer may avail itself, where appropriate, of a Himalayan clause in the bill of lading to defend against the claims of the beneficiaries. Stevedores should not, however, be able to impose a confirmation clause against one of the parties to the promotion contract, for example when it claimed to grant traffic jams the right to pay overtime. If the third party lodges an appeal and the undertaking does so a posteriori, the undertaking cannot claim damages. This is explained by the fact that the Commission considered that if the third party sought compensation for the infringement, the promise would no longer be interested in the dispute.
 Situations in which the undertaking suffered personal injury from the infringement are not taken into account.  If the undertaking is a first resort, the third party is prohibited from doing so unless the depositary`s act fails, in which case the third party is free to assert its own claim.  If a third party has rights, the contracting parties may not revoke or modify the contract without consent in order to extinguish or modify the third party`s right. . . .