Lloyd’s v Harper: 1888

Lush LJ said: ‘ The next question which, no doubt, is a very important and substantial one, is, that Lloyds, having sustained no damage themselves could not recover for the losses sustained by third parties by reason of the default of Robert Henry Harper as an Underwriter. That, to my mind, is a startling and alarming doctrine, and a novelty, because I consider it to be an established rule of law that where a contract is made with A for the benefit of B, A can sue on the contract for the benefit of B, and recover all that B could have recovered if the contract had been made with B himself.’


Lush LJ


[1888] 16 CD 290

Cited by:

ExplainedCoulls v Bagot’s Executor and Trustee Co Ltd 21-Mar-1967
(High Court of Australia) The court considered an action for damages by a party to a contract to enforce an obligation intended to benefit another.
Held: Windeyer J: ‘ I can see no reason why in such cases the damages which A would suffer upon . .
CitedBeswick v Beswick HL 29-Jun-1967
The deceased had assigned his coal merchant business to the respondent against a promise to pay andpound;5.00 a week to his widow whilst she lived. The respondent appealed an order requiring him to make the payments, saying that as a consolidating . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Damages

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.251050