An agreement was made by the fathers of a bride and groom to pay the groom a sum of money. When the bride’s father failed to pay, the groom sued.
Held: The claim failed. Wightman J said that no stranger to the consideration could take advantage of a contract though made for his benefit.
Crompton J said that consideration must move from the promisee. The doctrine of privity means, and means only, that a person cannot acquire rights, or be subjected to liabilities, arising under a contract to which he is not a party.
Judges:
Wightman J, Crompton J
Citations:
(1861) 1 B and S 393, 121 ER 762, [1861] EWHC QB J7, [1861] EngR 690, (1861) 121 ER 762, [1861] EWHC QB J57
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Confirmed – Gandy v Gandy 1885
In spite of earlier cases to the contrary, Tweddle v Atkinson had laid down ‘the true common law doctrine’. . .
Affirmed – Midland Silicones Ltd v Scruttons Ltd HL 6-Dec-1961
The defendant stevedores, engaged by the carrier, negligently damaged a drum containing chemicals. When the cargo-owners sued in tort, the stevedores unsuccessfully attempted to rely on a limitation clause contained in the bill of lading between the . .
Cited – Beswick 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.
Contract
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.221997