(1) The question of the construction of the contract is whether the risk of impossibility or illegality was assumed by one party and, if so, by which party, but whether the impossibility or illegality was foreseen by the parties or that they had to expect, as reasonable persons, to say to themselves that neither of them took the risk of their survival. The acceptance of an offer constitutes the “agreement” – not the contract – between the parties. The reforms of the 1999 law mean that a number of old cases would now be decided differently. In Beswick against Beswick, the House of Lords decided that Ms Beswick could expressly assert a promise made by her nephew to her late husband to pay her £5 a week in his capacity as administrator of the will, but the 1999 Act would also allow her to assert rights as a third party. In Scruttons Ltd/Midland Silicones Ltd, a bottling company could have benefited from the benefit of a limitation clause in a contract between a carrier and the owner of a damaged chemical drum. Lord Denning objected and argued in favour of abolishing the rule, and Lord Reid expressed an opinion that, if a bill of lading explicitly granted the benefit of a restriction for the Stevedores, the Stevedores give the carrier the power to do so and “the difficulties in thinking about changing Stevedore have been overcome”, then the Stevedores could benefit. In The Eurymedon, Lord Reid`s inventive solution was applied where some stauers similarly wanted the benefit of an exclusion clause after a drill was dropped, considering it to be traffic jams that fulfilled their already existing contractual obligation in favour of the third party (the owner of the drill). However, none of these significant technical analyses is necessary since any contract claiming to grant an advantage to a third party can in principle be applied by the third party. .