Tweddle v Atkinson
A person who is not a party to a contract, and has given no consideration, cannot sue on it.
Facts
William Tweddle married the daughter of William Guy. After the marriage, the two fathers made a written agreement that each would pay William Tweddle a sum of money, Guy paying £200 and Tweddle's father £100, and the agreement expressly stated that William Tweddle could sue for the money. Guy died without paying, and William Tweddle sued Guy's executor, Atkinson.
Legal principle
The court held that William Tweddle could not sue. He was not a party to the agreement between the two fathers, and he had provided no consideration for Guy's promise. Wightman J said that no stranger to the consideration can take advantage of a contract, although made for his benefit. The express statement that the son could sue made no difference. The case is a classic statement of the doctrine of privity, now subject to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
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.
