body: [Richard](https://www.uclan.ac.uk/staff_profiles/richard-taylor.php) and [Damian](https://www.slaughterandmay.com/who-we-are/partners/damian-taylor/) Taylor. [*Contract Law Directions* (2019 7 ed)](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/contract-law-directions-9780198836599?&lang=en&). p 356.
  
  
  
  > 
  > ### Application [of [Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/31/contents)] to case law
  > 
  > 
  > The first reported case on the Act, [*Nisshin Shipping v Cleaves* (2003)](http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2003/2602.html) makes it clear that the onus
  > is on the contracting parties to make it clear that they do not intend the party benefited by a term
  > to be able to enforce it under the Act. If the contract is neutral on this point then the third party is
  > permitted to enforce the term. In that case, the charter contract between the shipowner defendant
  > and the charterer stated that the claimant brokers were entitled to a 1 per cent commission.
  > Coleman J held that the brokers were permitted to sue the shipowner for the commission due
  > even though the broker was not a party to the contract. Further, the broker was bound by s.8 of
  > the Act to bring its claim in arbitration as the right to commission fell within the arbitration clause
  > in the contract; see also [*Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC v Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund
  > LP* (2012)](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/367.html) which reaffirmed the principle that a third party takes the benefit of rights subject to any
  > arbitration clause in the contract, although in that case the court rejected the defendants’ attempt
  > to stay proceedings brought in the Commercial Court in favour of arbitration because the contract
  > conferred on them ‘defensive’ rights under an exclusion clause and, in any event, the defendants
  > had not pleaded such a defence (presumably because the **relevant clauses contained a carve out
  > in the event of fraud** (which formed the basis of the allegations against them)). The substantive
  > claims brought were therefore not ones which arose pursuant to the Act (unlike the claim for
  > commission in *Nisshin*) and so s.8 of the Act did not bite and the defendants were not entitled to
  > be treated as though they were parties to the arbitration agreement.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  I read the case, and the clauses cited by Coleman J cited don't moot or use the noun 'fraud'. The judgment also doesn't contain the noun 'fraud'.
  
  
  
title: Meaning – relevant clauses contained a carve out in the event of fraud