Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

16 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge 1915
Dew & Co agreed 2 buy tyres from Dunlop - express undertaking that wldnt sell the tyres below certain prices fixed by manufacturer. Dew also undertook to obtain the same price-fixing agreements with its clients - Selfridge sold at discount price. Dunlop sued S-3rd party and sought an injunction, failed-lack of privity
Scruttons v Midland Silicones Ltd 1962
D tried to rely on limitation of liability clause in a contract to which he was not a party - unsuccessfully
New Zeland Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaile & Co Ltd (The Eurymedon) 1975
Beswick v Beswick 1968
nephew promised his uncle t pay an annuity to his Aunty/if Uncle will transfer the goodwill of the business to the nephew. The Aunty-not a party to the contract. Held: could be specifically enforced by the Uncle's personal representative (the Aunty) against the nephew. Damages - purely nominal as the promisee or his estate had suffered no loss. The nephew would have been unjustly enriched by being allowed to retain the entire benefit of the uncle's performance without performing his own promise.
Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd 1980
HoL: not expressly overruling Jackson - there is no general principle allowing a party to a contract to sue on behalf of 3rd parties injured by a breach of contract.
Jackson v Horizon Holidays 1975
J booked a "fam holiday", the booking - in his sole name. Holls - complete disaster, not as in the contract description. Sued not only on his own but on behalf of his family too. Company accepted liability but wld only pay damages to him - no privity of contract. CA: loss of enjoyment suffered by the family was in effect a loss to the contracting party himself. He hd paid for a "fam holiday" but not received it. Damages were awarded on this basis
Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd 1994
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd 2000
White v Jones 1995
In some cases an injured party wld bring an action in tort and avoid the problem of P but he has to prove the elements of tort
Les Affreteurs Reunis SA v Leopold Walford (London) Ltd 1919
W was a broker who negotiated an agreement b/w a charter party and the owner of the vessel - but- not party of the agreement. The agreement contained a stipulation that W shld receive a 3% commission from the shipowners for securing the agreement. Failed 2 pay, W sued for commission. The court accepted - a trust was created only because he was named as receiving a benefit under the agreement
Green v Russel 1959
Employer had insurance in his own name which also covered certain employees including Green and ws expressed as being for the benefit of dependent relatives. But - no such requirement in the contract of employment. Both men killed in a fire - Insurance company did not pay Green's wife. CA held - there ws no trust in favour of Green's wife coz the employer cld hv surrendered the policy at any time.
Nishin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd 2003
Held: C, chartering broker, was entitled under s1(1) of the Act to enforce a clause in a charterparty which conferred on it a benefit of 1% commission since the charterparty did not express any contrary intention and there was no evidence that it was the mutual intention of the contracting parties that C shld nt b entitled to bring a direct action under the Act
Tulk v Moxhay 1848 (restrictive covenants relating to land)
Tulk owned certain land in London that he sold with an express undertaking that it wld never b used to build property on. Property then resold many times - finally to Moxhay. Intended to build on it-Tulk sued-success. Court: it wld b against conscience for Moxhay to buy, knowing of the restriction/ therefore granted the injunction and enforced the original agreement even though Moxhay had never bn a party of it.
Lord Haldane (HoL) in Dunlop
"only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it"
The doctrine of privity
any person who is not a party to the contract can neither sue on it nor can they be sued under it
Lord Denning quoting Lush LJ in Lloyd's v Harper 1880
I consider it to b an established rule that where a contract is made with A for the benefit of B, A can sue on the contract for the benefit of B and recover all that B cld hv recovered if the contract hd bn made with B himself"