Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
8 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Tweddle v Atkinson 1861 (Started Doctrine of Privity of Contract) |
A couple were getting married. The father of the bride entered an agreement with the father of the groom that they would each pay the couple a sum of money. The father of the bride died without having paid. The father of the son also died so was unable to sue on the agreement. The groom made a claim against the executor of the will. The claim failed: The groom was not party to the agreement and the consideration did not move from him. Therefore he was not entitled to enforce the contract. |
|
|
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Selfridge 1915 (Shows that must comply with contract and no third party right) |
'Only a person under a contract may sue on it' Lord Dunedin complained that 'the effect of that doctrine in the present case make it possible for a person to snap his fingers at a bargain deliberately made, a bargain not unfair in itself, and which the person seeking to enforce it has a legitimate interest to enforce'. |
|
|
Beswick v Beswick CA and HL (Exception to privity by way of Statutory Exceptions) |
A sold business to B, his Nephew. In contract stated that if A dies B must pay widow stipend. Lord Denning in CA used statutory Act to allow her claim of the stipend. HL said the Act was out of context but allowed specific performance by the widow. |
|
|
Gregory & Parker v Williams 1817 (Trust Law as exception) |
Courts accepted that a trust of money had been created. Thus enforceable. |
|
|
Dunlop v Lambert 1839 (Exception rule where parties to a contract have contemplated that a breach would lead to a loss of an IDENTIFIABLE third party) |
Origin of rule were in contracts for carriage of goods. It allowed the consignor of the goods to sue for damages caused by the carrier where the goods had become the property of the consignee before transit but the consignee had no rights to sue under the contract of carriage. |
|
|
Jackson v Horizon Holiday 1975 (Exception, Holiday Cases) |
Jackson booked family holiday. Holiday was disaster. Sued Horizon Holiday. Horizon disputed that it should pay for family as privity of contract. Held that loss of enjoyment suffered by the family was in effect a loss to the contract parties himself. Damages were awarded on that basis. |
|
|
Shanklin Pier v Detel Products Ltd 1951 (Collateral Contracts) |
Painters, Shanklin and Detel paint sellers. Painters instructed by Shanklin to purchase Detel pain (Detel had said, upon being asked by Shanklin, it would last years). Paint was not as promised. Shanklin, although not a party to the contract of purchasing the paint, was able to find that Detel had a collateral contract with Shanklin which was broken. |
|
|
Nisshin Shipping Co v Cleaves & Co Ltd 2003 (Rights of Third Parties Act 1999) |
Contract between ship owners and charterers of the vessel was a clause which included for payment of commission to the broker of the two parties. When broker not paid he sued. Court held that he could enforce his rights under 1991 Act. He was identifiable s1(3) from the contract and contract clearly conferred benefit onto him s1(1)(b). |
