In his ground-breaking book The Paths to Privity V.V. Palmer has identified the period between 1500 and 1680 as the “formative period”of the doctrine of privity of contract. Within that period there were, he suggests, “basically four individual paths to privity for the beneficiary”: the interest theory, the benefit theory, the agency cases, and the consideration theory. This article is concerned with the first of these theories, and in particular with the role played within that theory by the concepts of use and trust.

In the Court of Appeal recently, Nourse L.J. declared Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v. Burch to be “as clear a case for the setting aside of a transaction against a mortgagee as it was possible to think of”. Curiously, however, relief on the basis of Barclays Bank pic v. O'Brien was given although: (i) the relationship between the surety and principal debtor, of employee and employer, clearly falls outside that of an “emotional or sexual nature” (and no such relationship existed in fact) particularised in O'Brien as one factor giving rise to a lender's constructive notice of the transaction's potential invalidity and; (ii) the Bank twice wrote to the proposed surety advising of the unlimited nature of the charge and of the desirability of obtaining independent legal advice; moreover, (iii) there is surprising dicta suggesting that the nature and extent of the manifest disadvantage in the transaction to the surety may be so severe that, to be enforceable, the lender must not only urge independent advice, it must insist upon it, and must reasonably believe that the advice was obtained, was competent and even, that it was followed.

Environmental permits come in many forms and control many activities. On occasion they can authorise one-off events, but more usually they provide authorisation for operations that will continue for some time. Even planning permission granted to construct a building has an enduring effect since it not only controls the building operation that may be completed within a short period but also determines what use of the land is authorised unless and until a new permission is sought. The precise life-span of many operations may be uncertain, but especially in view of the major capital cost of establishing chemical works, landfill sites, waste water treatment plants, etc., the operators' intention is to continue for a considerable time. Over that time circumstances may change so that the terms of the permit, or its very existence, are no longer considered appropriate. The aim of this paper is to explore the range of legal techniques that have been adopted for the variation of permits and the consequences of these in terms of enabling regulatory action and of protecting the various interests that will be affected by such exercises of power. The impact of such variation is most obviously felt by the operators, potentially threatening the viability, if not the fundamental legality, of their activities, but there is also an effect on third parties and the environment.

“There is no such thing known to our procedure as putting half a prisoner's character in issue and leaving out the other half.” This observation fell from Humphreys J. in delivering the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R. v. Winfield (1939). The purpose of this article is to suggest that at common law this statement is not borne out by principle or by authority. The effect on the common law where the prisoner elects to go into the witness-box in exercise of the statutory opportunity created by the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, will also be considered. The type of situation that arises is illustrated by Winfield's Case, where the facts, in brief, were that on a charge of indecent assault, W. put in issue his good character for sexual morality, and the prosecution in cross-examination proved his previous convictions for offences involving dishonesty. The court held that such cross-examination was proper. The question is whether the evidence of the good or bad character of the prisoner must be confined to the trait or traits relevant to the type of crime charged. It will be submitted that the evidence must be so confined. On an indictment for murder, evidence of the good or bad character of the prisoner for honesty will be inadmissible. Not only the crime charged but also the circumstances in which it is alleged to have been committed must be considered. If the murder is committed with a hammer, character for peace and quiet on the one hand and for violence on the other will be admissible, but not if it is a case of slow poisoning.