Privity (law)

Privity is a well-established component of the federal law of res judicata. A privy is bound with respect to all the issues that were raised or could have been raised in the previouslawsuit. Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597, 68 S. Ct. 715, 719, 92 L.Ed. 898 (1948).

However, privity did not possess a technical and well-defined meaning. "Under federal law, “concepts summarized by the term privity are looked to as a means of determining whether the interests of the party against whom claim preclusion is asserted were represented in prior litigation.” Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Celotex Corp., 56 F.3d 343, 346 (2nd Cir. 1995). Therefore, privity in federal common law is “a convenient means of expressing conclusions that are supported by independent analysis.” Meza v. General Battery Corp., 908 F.2d 1262 (5th Cir. 1990).

Because privity is actually a term to summarize a conclusion that one party was precluded, it “may exist for the purpose of determining one legal question but not another depending on the circumstances and legal doctrines at issue.” Chase Manhattan Bank, 56 F.3d at 346.

Privity has shown itself to be an elusive and manipulable concept because of it is can easily employed in circular argument.