Privity is generally understood as a rule comprising a burdens limb and a more controversial benefits or ‘rights’ limb. This rendition of privity is too simplistic. Privity has multiple aspects, but its underlying complexity has been obscured by an overwhelming focus on ‘rights’, explaining in part the persistent unclarity plaguing the area. In this article, I argue that an elision of concepts has hampered our understanding of privity and its reform. The literature on contractual rights to performance and secondary rights to damages for their breach is legion. By contrast, standing, as a separate and distinct concept, has been overlooked. These are concepts that need to be more clearly differentiated. While not a panacea to resolve all issues, it is a necessary step to a firmer handle over the distinct issues at stake, and to opening up a novel angle to privity reform—third-party standing—the road not taken.