1- The doctrine of privity
Untill 1999 there was a very strong view that the contract was only for the parties. It was difficult to anknowledge another party enforcingrights on the contract. It is the doctrine of privity. Third parties do not get rights on the contract.
Reasons to reject a third party:
third parties haven't take consideration in the contract.He was not bound.
The doctrine of consideration : one must have a benefit/detriment.
the third party is not involved in the contract /doesn't know about it.
The main problem is to knowwho can enforce the contract. The third party has no mecanism to know if the contract was done. Having a third party makes it difficult on the extent that stops the two parties in control on thecontract.
Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) :
=> Does the third party in a contract have the right to sue ?
The executor has to refund the state so that the … ?
JT <================> WG(died) executor )Contract
. ….......... ) promise of gift
WT < Wife
The courts refuse to give right to the express intention of the parties. Agreement on two partie to conferbenefit to a third party, and giving him a right of action; but the court refuses to let it happen. They override the parties will.
Can the third party, who has been named and given an express rightof sueing, sue on the contract ?
=> NO : there is no consideration
Crompton J = Judge => Mr/Mrs Justice Crompton
Denning LJ = lord justice (court of appeal) => lord justicedenning
Lord Denning = House of Lords=> lord denning
WT is juste like a doney. Rights to sue arrise because of the agreement of the parties, but in addition he must have given something in partof the deal.
If the document would have been a deed, it would have been different, and WT would have had an enforcable right on the contract.
In English Law, the right to sue for breach of...