Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd
A third party, such as a stevedore, cannot rely on a limitation clause in a contract to which it is not a party.
Facts
A drum of chemicals was shipped from New York to London under a bill of lading that limited the carrier's liability to $500. Scruttons, stevedores employed by the carrier to unload the ship in London, negligently dropped the drum while lowering it onto a lorry, causing damage worth about £593. The cargo owners sued Scruttons in tort, and Scruttons sought to rely on the limitation in the bill of lading.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that Scruttons could not rely on the limitation clause, because they were not parties to the contract of carriage. Lord Reid suggested that a third party could take the benefit of such a clause if four conditions were met: the bill of lading makes clear that the stevedore is intended to be protected; it makes clear that the carrier is contracting as agent for the stevedore as well as on its own behalf; the carrier has authority from the stevedore to do so; and any difficulty about consideration moving from the stevedore is overcome. Those conditions were not satisfied here, but they were later applied in The Eurymedon.
Related cases on privity of contract
- Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd [2001] 1 AC 518
- Avraamides v Colwill [2006] EWCA Civ 1533
- Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58
- Chudley v Clydesdale Bank plc [2019] EWCA Civ 344, [2020] QB 284
- Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 68
- Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847
- Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468
- Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v Artis (The Laemthong Glory) (No 2) [2005] EWCA Civ 519, [2005] 1 Lloyd's Rep 688
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
