Also known as: approach to privity · privity of contract · near privity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A relationship between parties that lacks formal privity of contract yet is sufficiently close to support tort liability for negligent misrepresentation or similar claims.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Atlas Ventures leased industrial property to Andrew Avery under a lease containing an express covenant to maintain groundwater monitoring wells. Avery assigned the leasehold to Apex Dynamics with Atlas's consent but without any release of Avery. When Apex stopped maintaining the wells, Atlas sued Avery for breach. Avery's original express promise created continuing contractual liability that survived the assignment.
Aether Technologies leased rooftop space to Albert Allen with an express non-interference covenant. Allen assigned the lease to Alliance Holdings and promised in the assignment document to perform the covenant. When Alliance caused interference, the landlord sued Alliance directly on the basis of its contractual assumption.
Atlas Ventures hired an accounting firm to audit its financial statements knowing the reports would be provided to a limited group of potential investors including Alexis Archer. Archer relied on the reports and suffered losses from misstatements. The close relationship between the auditor and the identified investors supported liability despite the absence of direct contract.
Apex Dynamics sold power tools to a distributor that resold them to Alfred Ashford. Ashford was injured when a tool malfunctioned. Although Ashford had no direct contract with Apex, the manufacturer's knowledge that its products would reach foreseeable users created a relationship approaching privity supporting a negligence claim.
Winterbottom contracted with a coachbuilder to maintain mail coaches. A passenger injured when a coach failed was denied recovery because he lacked any contractual relationship with the coachbuilder, illustrating the strict privity barrier later relaxed by approaching-privity doctrines.
Adam Anderson witnessed his mother fatally injured by a negligent driver. Although Anderson had no direct involvement in the accident, the close familial relationship placed him within the zone of danger, permitting recovery under an approaching-privity analysis for emotional distress.
Approaching privity relaxes the traditional requirement of a direct contractual relationship to allow recovery in tort when the connection between the parties is sufficiently close and foreseeable.
Supporting sources
Courts have applied the concept in auditor liability to known third-party users of financial statements and in products liability to foreseeable users of defective goods.
Supporting sources
It supports tort claims such as negligent misrepresentation rather than contractual enforcement, because no formal agreement exists between the parties.
Supporting sources
…If he can maintain the suit, it is because an anomaly has found its way into the law on this subject. In general, there must be privity of contract. The party who sues upon a promise must be the promisee, or he must have some legal interest in the undertaking. In this case, it is plain that Holly, who loaned the money to the defendant…