A son made a promise to his father that, in return for his father not selling a wood, he would pay andpound;1000 to his sister. The father refrained from selling the wood, but the son did not pay. It was held that the sister could sue, on the ground that the consideration and promise to the father may well have extended to her on account of the tie of blood between them. There was some disagreement in argument, on the grounds that the daughter was privy neither to the promise nor the consideration.
Citations:
(1678) 2 Lev 210, 83 ER 523
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Drive Yourself Hire Co (London) Ltd v Strutt CA 1954
The court discussed the doctrine of privity of contract. Lord Denning MR said: ‘It is often said to be a fundamental principle of our law that only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it. I wish to assert, as distinctly as I can, that . .
Confirmed – Martyn v Hind 1776
. .
Appeal from – Dutton v Poole CEC 1679
(Exchequer Chamber) Upheld . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.221999