Tweddle v. Atkinson 1861(Case Summary)
This case established the foundational principle of privity of contract in English law, holding that only parties to a contract can sue to enforce it, even if the contract was made for their benefit. It also highlighted the requirement of consideration from the promisee for enforceability.
Facts of Tweddle v. Atkinson
- John Tweddle (the father of the groom) and William Guy (the father of the bride) entered into an agreement to each pay a sum of money to the groom, William Tweddle.
- The agreement stated that William Tweddle, the groom, could sue to enforce the payment if either party failed to fulfill their promise.
- William Guy passed away without paying the agreed sum.
- William Tweddle sued the executor of the will of Mr. Guy, Atkinson, to recover the promised amount.
Issues framed
- Whether a person who is not a party to a contract sue to enforce its terms, even if the contract was made for their benefit?
- Whether the mention of a third-party beneficiary in a contract gives them a right to enforce it?
Judgment of Tweddle v. Atkinson
The High Court of Justice applied the principle of privity of contract, which stipulates that only parties to a contract have enforceable rights or obligations under it.
The Court held that William Tweddle could not sue because he was not a party to the contract. It emphasized that privity of contract prevents third parties from enforcing contractual obligations, even if they are explicitly mentioned as beneficiaries. The consideration required to support the contract had not moved from William Tweddle but from his father, John Tweddle. Therefore, William Tweddle had no enforceable claim.
The Court dismissed the suit, holding that William Tweddle had no right to enforce the agreement.
