Dieses Gesetz existiert jedenfalls, müsstest du nochmal genau recherchieren, ob es in deinen Zusammenhang passt.

Don't forget the "S" on Contract; read a little bit about the Act on the site below.

Contracts Act 1999. ... by virtue of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 ...
www.kluwerarbitration.com/arbitration/ arb/home/newsletter/

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 45 mins (2004-05-31 17:51:11 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The correct title it seems is \"Contracts´(Rights of third parties) Act, 1999\"

Before the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 came into force a doctrine known as "privity of contract" meant that no person who was not a party to a contract could benefit from it nor have a duty imposed on them under it. However the fact that a third party could not benefit from a contract to which they were not party came in for a certain amount of criticism and what actually happened was that the courts found some artificial and complicated ways to get around this doctrine while upholding it at the same time.

Under tne new Act it is now possible to benefit from a contract to which you are not party, but not to have a burden imposed on you.

The contract must either expressly state that a third party is to benefit or purport to confer a benefit.

The third party must be expressly identified by name, as a member of a class or answering a certain description, but does not necessarily have to exist (e.g. a company not yet incorporated).

Another example is employees being exempted from liability under a contract.

The clause that you have to translate is expressly stating that no third parties are to benefit under the contract.