The common law Doctrine of Privity as it relates to contracts provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it. In essence, the Doctrine of Privity of Contracts simply states, that only the parties to a contract have the right to sue or be sued under it. This means, generally speaking, that third parties who get a benefit under a contract do not have the right to go against the parties to the contract beyond the entitlement to such benefit. An example of this occurs when a manufacturer sells a product to a distributor and the distributor sells the product to a retailer. The retailer then sells the product to a consumer. There is no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the consumer.

However, one exception to this doctrine is that for contracts, which create an interest in land. Contracts involving real property run with the land, so that a new property owner can sue or be sued on a contract, even though he was not a party to it. A second exception to the Doctrine of Privity is an assignment

In an assignment, a person (called the assignor) can assign to a third party (the assignee) his entitlement to benefits arising out of a contract. If he does so, the third party has the right to sue to enforce those benefits. Obviously, a person cannot assign liabilities under a contract.

There are two types of assignments: statutory and equitable. A statutory assignment has three essentials:

[ ] The assignment is in writing.

[ ] The assignment is absolute, that is for the whole amount, and unconditional.

[ ] Notice of the assignment has been given in writing to the original promissor.

If any of the foregoing essentials is missing, the assignment might still be equitable. Statutory and equitable assignments are enforced differently by the Courts. In an equitable assignment all three parties must be named as parties in a court action to recover the amount outstanding. In a statutory assignment, on the other hand, only the original promissor and the assignee are named as parties to the action. The assignor is not a party to it.

An assignment does not alter the rights of the parties to the original contract. The assignee has no better legal position than the assignor had. More specifically, he receives the assignment subject to any defenses, which could have been raised between the original parties. If the assignor has properly assigned his rights, he is free from any further liabilities. It is now up to the assignee to collect the benefits of the original contract. Should the assignee fail, he cannot sue the assignor for it.

Finally, the original promissor does not have to make payments to the assignee until he receives proper notice. Once this notice is received, the original promissor must pay to the assignee and not the assignor even though he has not consented to the assignment.

Although no one can assign his liabilities under a contract, as stated above, a promissor can have his obligations performed by someone else. For instance, a promissor can require his employee or sub-contractor to perform his obligations under a building construction contract. Where a promissor has someone else perform his obligations under a contract, it is called vicarious performance. Vicarious performance is not an assignment, in that it does not result in the substitution of one the original contracting parties for another.

In the aforesaid example of a building construction agreement, the original contractor (promissor) is still liable to the other contracting party. In addition, the sub-contractor who performs vicariously cannot be sued by the other contracting party for non-performance. Only the building contractor can sue the sub-contractor, and this is so because of the privy of contract intercurrent between the two of them.

Luigi Frascati

Luigi Frascati is a Real Estate Agent based in Vancouver, British Columbia. He holds a Bachelor Degree in Economics and maintains a weblog entitled the Real Estate Chronicle at http://wwwrealestatechronicle.blogspot.com where you can find the full collection of his articles. Luigi is associated with the Sutton Group, the largest real estate organization in Canada, and is based with Sutton-Centre Realty in Burnaby, BC.

Luigi is very proud to be an EzineArticles Platinum Expert Author. Your rating at the footer of this Article is very much appreciated. Thank you.

http://houseenergy.blogspot.com/2009/07/assignees-nominees-and-other-extra.html

reviewed by Moishe Alexander, canadian funding corp CEO

Background

In 1910 Robert Simpson Co Ltd. constructed a five-storey, reinforced concrete and steel structure, which was used for wagon storage and as a harness shop. In 1916 an 11-storey mail-order building and warehouse was added at the south end of the complex. The final construction phase of the complex took place in 1930 when additions were made at the north and west sides.
Throughout the last decades of the 20th century numerous development plans for the then vacant Simpson’s building were put forth to the City of Toronto. However, each of the project plans fell through. In 1997, Cresford Development of Toronto introduced a plan to construct a new, mixed-use (residential, retail, and commercial) complex. As the plan incorporated more residential development into an area that had been a concern of the City for some time, it was approved for its development permit.
The building, now known as the Merchandise Building, consists of 504 loft residential units, 529 above-grade car parking spaces, 246 bicycle spaces, 4 loading bays, a 30,000-square-foot food store, and 35,300 square feet of retail and office space.There are nine styles of luxury condominiums ranging in size from 565 square feet to 1765 square feet, which are priced from $148,900 to $425,000 respectively. At street level the building features retail space including a major grocery store chain and a restaurant. A twelfth storey was added to the structure to make space for an indoor pool, party room, dining facilities, and an outside dipping pool.
The roof is landscaped with a prairie meadow growing in two green roof plots. The green roof proper is approximately 10,000 square feet and is surrounded by an additional 15,000 square feet of hard surface concrete pavers. The decision to install the green roof was made by the development in the final phases of the redevelopment project in order to maximize the area available for planting without needing to adjust the structural loading capacity of the building. The total redesign and regeneration of this 1,070,000-square-foot complex is believed to be the largest of its kind in North America.

Highlights
• Building Type:                12-storey, multi-use condominium complex
• Units:                        504
• Typical Population:             500-800
• Location:                     155 Dalhousie Street Toronto, Ontario
• Status:                         Renovations/conversion of complex completed in February 2000
• Cost of green roof retrofit:     $200,000
• Area of green roof:             10,000 square feet of planting area 15,000 square feet of decorative concrete pavers
• Green roof type:                 Extensive
• Saturated weight:                >30 lbs per cubic foot
• Developer:                     Cresford Development Inc.
• Architect:                     Paul Northgrave Northgrave Architect Inc.
• Landscape Architect:             David Lieberman, David Lieberman Architects Terry McGlade, Perennial Gardens

Budget

The 10,000 square foot green roof and corresponding 15,000 square foot hard surface area was designed, supplied and installed for just over $200,000 (approximately $8.00-10.00 per square foot).
Allocation                                         Expenditure
Landscape Design                                     $10,000
Green Roof Materials (includes supply & install)     $105,00
Plants (includes supply & install)                     $67,000
Irrigation                                             $12,500
Ornamentals (galvanized steel planting structure)     $8,000
—————————————————————-
Total:                                                 $202,500

Structural Considerations

The original building was constructed of steel and concrete. The extra weight of the recreational facilities (a green roof, lap pool and sun terrace) would have been in excess of the roofs original loading capacity. In order for the existing building to withstand the additional weight, the entire roof was reinforced with steel girders.
It is very important to note that while the weight of the roof was a concern, the need for the steel girders was mostly due to the extra loading from the lap pool and not the green roof.
The saturated weight of the green roof is less than 30 pounds per cubic foot. In fact, the decision to use a green roof system, instead of traditional planter boxes, was made because of its low weight.

Installation and Technical Issues

The original plan for the roof was to create a container garden on top of a traditional roof. However, to increase the planting space available, the project developers commissioned a green roof after construction had begun and the roof had been installed.

The installation of the green roof on the Merchandise Lofts posed three major technical problems:
1. getting the materials (growing medium, plants, slabs, etc.) on to the roof of a 12-storey structure,
2. working in a construction site, and,
3. using a pre-existing roof as the base to build the green roof plots on.

The problem of getting the material to the roof was overcome with cranes that were already on the site for the building renovation. The landscape designers worked closely with the contractors to avoid conflicting schedules and avoided problems that might have occurred due to implementing the green roof during the major construction project. The designers of the roof had to overcome some issues with placement of the plots and plants due to the location of some building mechanical equipment that were installed on the original roof.

Green Roof Characteristics

Type and Warranty
The Merchandise Building green roof is an accessible extensive system that uses selected elements of Soprema’s Sopranature green roofing system. However, as it was placed on top of the original gravel-top roof, it incorporates many of the original roof features including membrane and flashing. The roof on which the green roof elements were placed upon holds a standard 10-year roof warranty. Selected elements of the green roof are warrantied, but as it is not a complete green roof system, there is no universal warranty. The plants were warrantied for one-year effective from the date of purchase.

Growing Medium
The growing medium used was a mixture of Soprema’s Sopraflor-X, which is designed specifically for extensive green roof systems, and “grow-bark” potting soil. Sopraflor-X is comprised of an unconsolidated mixture of organic matter and mineral aggregates with a particle size of 16 mm. Soprema claims its growing medium will provide optimal water retention, permeability, structural stability and density.The grow-bark potting soil is comprised of soil, peat, manure and compost.The mixture was selected for its light weight and ability to adhere to the plants in windy conditions.The growing medium was applied across the plots in varying depths (from two to eighteen-inches).

Plant Selection
The primary issue when selecting the plants and designing the green roof plan, was the excessive wind and sun exposure. The green roof is located on the roof of the twelfth storey and has southern exposure. Native species, such as grasses, that function well in extreme conditions were selected. The plants were also grown in ‘plug’ sizes that ensured firm roots in the shallow growing medium. 37 different species of native Ontario plants were included in the design. Examples of the selected species are: Switch Grass (Panicum Virgatum), Hairy Beardtongue (Penstemon hirsutus), Gray-headed Coneflower (Ratibida pinnata), Pale Purple Coneflower (Echinacea palida), Woodland Sunflower (Helianthus divaricatus), and Sedum (spurium red, Ewersii, sexangulare, kamtachaticum, spurium Album). The total budget for the plants was $67,000, which included their transport to the site and installation.

Irrigation & Drainage
Currently, the plants are irrigated through a drip irrigation system, which cost $12,500 to purchase and install. No specialized drainage system was installed for the Merchandise Building green roof. It is using the pre-existing drainage system from the traditional gravel roof.

Monitoring & Maintenance
No monitoring of the green roof has taken place or is planned. There have been no funds allocated for maintenance or replacement of lost plants. However, as the building will be governed by a condominium association, the decision to create a budget for future replanting, reproofing or repair may be made at a later date.

Benefits
The major benefit that the green roof offered the developer was the ability to create outdoor recreational space for future tenants with maximum green space and minimal hard surface coverage.While originally the roof was to be comprised of container gardens, the green roof’s low weight, allowed for the design of additional green space without creating the need to re-examine and make adjustments to the loading capacity of the roof.
The Merchandise Lofts gave the landscape designers the opportunity to experiment with new light-weight growing mediums and plant selection. Reviewed by Marty Lapedus.

Ucluelet First Nation (UFN) spans nine reserves on the west coast of B.C.’s Vancouver Island; its main village of Ittatsoo has a registered population of about 620, but provides residence for approximately 200; the other 420 are either waiting for on-reserve housing, or living off-reserve, where monthly rents begin at $850 for a one-bedroom house. When UFN decided to create a new housing development in 2006, the community had to consider not only its limited funds, but also its long-term needs.
The DNR Management development team ensured that community consultation was integral to the development from the beginning, by involving the UFN Housing Committee, community members and the Chief and Council, and updating designs as the community’s needs emerged. The location was hardly the usual housing situation: the area is prone to strong winds and rain, and at risk of both earthquakes and tidal waves; sloped terrain subjects some units to flooding. Furthermore, the housing shortage has led to overcrowding and associated mold and air-quality problems.
The emerging design involved 24 new social housing units: two triplexes, three duplexes, six single-family homes and a six unit co-housing building that could accommodate a traditional extended family, with a common area for group meals and gatherings. What was not so traditional about the design was the LOGIX Insulated Concrete Form (ICF) construction, which uses stacked, interlocking forms made of expanded polystyrene foam and filled with steelreinforced concrete to create the external walls. This design is both energy-efficient and durable, with an expected life-span of a century.
Coated on the inside with acrylic stucco, the walls resist mold, while an external cement-based siding (Hardi-Plank) resists the area’s high winds and rain, assisted by the buildings’ large overhangs. Airtight design, radiant floor heating and heat recovery ventilators (HRVs) optimize the energy efficiency of the new homes. Other kinds of efficiency lay in the construction itself: because the walls were erected first, and were impervious to moisture from the beginning, there was no need to wait for good weather to pour the concrete floors. And by re-using wood and other material from the cleared site, the DNR Management team and UFN were able to save money, train and employ local people, and reduce construction waste.
Six of these units were funded by the regular housing allotment from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC); a one-time grant from CMHC, along with a contribution from UFN and from INAC, funded the remaining 18 units. Completed in March 2008, the new subdivision with 18 new housing units promises long-term affordability for Aboriginal families in comfortable homes that are easy to maintain.
There are benefits to the rest of the community as well, says Guiseppe Strazzeri: the wood recovered from construction will go to improve other buildings, and community members who received ICF-construction training will be able to apply their skills to future developments in a high-demand labour market.

Low-income families in Ottawa have few options for purchasing houses: down-payments can be a barrier even if their incomes are stable, and high housing prices are driving people farther from the core, increasing the burden on transportation systems.
Somerset Gardens, an attractive, 11-storey, 119-unit condominium is proof that a development can be 100 per cent affordable in Ottawa’s sought-after downtown neighbourhood, without any ongoing government subsidies—and it’s the result of collaboration among some very different players, notes Martin Lapedus.
Teron Inc. is a private developer that created a subsidiary (Somerset Gardens) dedicated to affordable housing. Teron reduced the selling price to 20 per cent below market and all units are affordable to people within the 40th income percentile. Through an agreement with the City of Ottawa, Teron set up an Assisted Home Ownership Program (AHOP), under which the City and Teron deferred the payment of a total of $11,315 per unit. For purchasers to qualify, they must be within the 40th income percentile and live in the unit. Interest accrues while they own the unit, but is deferred until they sell. If they sell to another qualifying purchaser, the deferral can continue; 42 purchasers have taken advantage of the program. CMHC recognizes this deferral as the down payment and therefore Teron requires the purchasers to contribute only one per cent towards the down payment.
Multifaith Housing Initiative (MHI) is a charitable organization created in 2002. Its members come from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Unitarian faith communities. One of its members, St. John’s Anglican Church, sold its parking lot as land for the building of Somerset Gardens.
Action Ottawa, the City’s affordable housing program, provided MHI with a grant towards purchasing 10 of the units, requiring at least six to be rented to people on the city’s Below Market Rent (BMR) Housing Registry. MHI also received funds through the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program Agreement, and was able to leverage more than $200,000 in loans and donations from faith communities and individuals—all of which contributed to creating six affordable rental units at $460 per month. Four units are rented at $793, well below the true market value. Members of St. John’s Anglican Church purchased four additional units that are being rented at subsidized rents—creating several levels of affordability in the same building.
With balconies, lots of natural light, barrier-free mobility throughout, and a rooftop garden managed by a residents’ club, Somerset Gardens blends with the neighbourhood and creates a mix of all ages and family types. While it features only 23 parking spaces for 119 units, it is close enough to the downtown core that most residents do not need a car.

In Steinbach, Man., a rural community about an hour’s drive from Winnipeg, economic growth has attracted more people and driven real estate prices up by 8-10% annually. Many lower-income singles and families in the area, says Guiseppe Strazzeri, are unable to find adequate and affordable housing. For people who need ongoing mental health support, the challenge is even greater: many depend on employment and income assistance and must often choose between sub-standard housing or moving far from their established networks and support services, as well as the stability that is essential to their recovery. Other non-profit support services in the area report waiting times of up to five years.
Furthermore, landlords are sometimes uninformed about mental health issues.
Several community representatives formed a board and brought their concerns to Eden Health Care Services, which has a provincewide mandate to provide support to people with mental illness, and 40 years of experience. Having a broad base of community input and support helped to bring together the idea of Penfeld Court as a unique combination of affordable housing and support services that would integrate well with the community.
With the Board members’ influence in Steinbach, and Eden’s strong support in the faith community, they were able to inspire various local organizations—from church groups to private foundations and businesses—to donate funds and labour, which gave weight to the proposal. In turn, this helped Eden to secure a larger amount of funding from the City of Steinbach, municipal and provincial governments.
Penfeld Court was completed in September 2006 as an attractive, three-storey rental apartment building that blends with the surrounding neighbourhood. The building’s 24 well-appointed units house low-income singles and small families. About half of the units are occupied by people who need ongoing mental health support, provided by Eden Health Care Services, which also manages the building. This innovative supportive housing model provides a unique combination of support services and housing in a rural community.
Eden has ensured that tenant-relations officers and the program manager are well versed in mental health issues, while community members serve on the Penfeld Court Board—representing the interests of the neighbourhood while reinforcing each resident’s right to dignity and privacy.