privity的中文意思为“相互关系，共同关系，连续关系”，即法律关系，指在契约当事人、遗嘱执行人与立遗嘱人、财产转让人与受让人、继承人与被继承人、主债务人与担保人等法律关系当事人之间存在的同一财产权利的相互关系。

privity of contract相应理解为“合同的厉害关系，合同的相对性”，指合同当事人之间存在的联系或关系。按照惯例，提起有关合同的诉讼，原告和被告必须就系争事项存在厉害关系。但由于产品质量保证法规的制定和严格责任原则的采用，第三人因产品质量受到伤害或损害，也有权请求制造商或销售商赔偿。

合同相对性具体包括三个方面：第一。主体相对，即指合同关系只能发生在特定的主体之间，只有合同当事人一方能够向合同的另一方当事人基于合同提出请求或提起诉讼；第二，内容相对，即指除法律、合同另有规定以外，只有合同当事人才能享有合同规定的权利，并承担该合同规定的义务，当事人以外的任何第三人不能主张合同上的权利，更不负担合同中规定的义务；最后，责任相对，违反合同的责任的相对性的内容包含三个方面：（1）违约当事人应对因自己的过错造成的违约后果承担违约责任，而不能将责任推卸给他人；（2）在因第三人的行为造成债务不能履行的情况下，债务人仍应向债权人承担违约责任。债务人在承担违约责任后，有权向第三人追偿，债务人为第三人的行为负责，既是合同相对性原则的体现，也是保护债权人利益所必须的；（3）债务人只能向债权人承担违约责任，而不应向国家或第三人承担违约责任。

为了更好的理解该词，以下是其英文释义：The doctrine of privity of contract is a common law principle which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages as such. However, the doctrine has proven problematic because of its implications for contracts made for the benefit of third parties who are unable to enforce the obligations of the contracting parties. In England and Wales, the doctrine has been substantially weakened by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, which created a statutory exception to privity (enforceable third party rights).

双语例句：

That the Applicant has been a Officer of Defendant No. 1 since 7.10.2015, however, he is not based in Japan and is not at all involved in the business of Defendant No.1 in Japan on an executive level. It is submitted that Defendant No. 3/ Applicant had no role in the hiring of the Plaintiff by Defendant No.1 and was not a part of the process of the termination of his contract of employment by Defendant No.1. It is submitted that as Officer of Defendant No.1, the Defendant No.3/ Applicant performed his responsibilities according to the byelaws of Defendant No.1 which did not include any role in the hiring or firing of employees of Defendant No.1. It is submitted that even the Plaintiff has not made any allegations or averments of Defendant No.7/ Applicant’s involvement in his alleged illegal termination by Defendant No.1 thus Applicant’s impleadment in the present suit is without reason and done with the malicious intent to harass the Applicant. There is no privity of contract between the Applicant and the Plaintiff. 

申请人自2015年10月7日起担任第一被告人的高管，但他并未在日本供职，也根本未以高管身份参与第一被告人在日本的业务。据呈，第三被告人/申请人在第一被告人雇用原告过程中未发挥任何作用，也全程未参与第一被告人终止与原告的雇用合同。据呈，第七被告人/申请人作为第一被告人的高管，根据第一被告人的章程履行其职责，其中不包括雇用或解雇第一被告人雇员的任何职责。据呈，原告未就第三被告人/申请人参与第一被告人非法终止合同一事提出任何指控或主张，因此申请人成为本案的当事人之一是不合理的，属于恶意骚扰申请人的行为。申请人与原告之间不存在合同相对性。