The first legislative proposal on the reform of the practice was made in 1937; In its sixth interim report, the Committee on Legal Audit proposed a legislative act by Parliament that would allow third parties to enforce the terms of a treaty that provided for admissibility. The Second World War intervened and the report was not implemented; As recently as 1986, it was assumed that Parliament would not act and that any reform would come from judicial sources (notably the House of Lords).  Section 5 protects the promiseor from dual liability (for the payment of two damages for the same offence, one to one to one to one party and the other to undertakings) if the offender is contrary to the contract.  However, this is done only in a very limited way – the product is protected only if it has paid damages to the promised, and the right of the third party comes after.  In addition, the law only limits damages paid in this situation and is not repaired.  If the undertaking commences and wins an action against the promised enterprise, any compensation paid to the third party in a subsequent action must take into account the previous damages that have been paid to the promised undertaking.  Over the next 200 years, several judges made different decisions as to whether a third party could obtain a contract they were entitled to. The dispute ended in 1861 with Tweddle v Atkinson  121 ER 762, which confirmed that a third party was unable to obtain a contract that was profitable to him.  This decision was upheld in 1915 by the House of Lords of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Selfridge and Co Ltd  AC 847 where Lord Haldane stated that only a person who was a party to a contract could take legal action.  This version of teaching is commonly referred to as original or fundamental teaching.
  Banks are common third parties, as many contracts involve payments and banks hold the funds payable, including the bank as an undclared third-party agreement. The name of the bank of the contractual signatories and the method of payment are generally withdrawn from the contract, as banks are required to pay when the institution receives a properly drawn check and the person`s account has sufficient resources to cover it. However, insufficient resources or misdirected cheques are the responsibility of the signatory and not the third-party bank. The law allows third parties to impose contractual conditions that are somehow favourable to them or that the contract allows them to do so. It also gives them access to a number of remedies in the event of a breach of conditions. The law also limits how a contract can be amended without the consent of an interested third party. At the same time, it protects the promise and promise in the event of a dispute with the third party and allows the contracting parties to explicitly exclude the protection afforded by the law if they wish to restrict the participation of third parties.