Privity

Front 1

Tweddle v Atkinson

Back 1

Father and Father in law wanted to give money to newly married young man, father would give £100 and father in law £200, man would have right to sue to enforce, father paid but father in law died and as the young man gave no consideration and wasn't a party, he could not enforce.

Hint 1

Father and father in law pay young man.

Front 2

Beswick v Beswick

Back 2

Man sold business to nephew in consideration for £6 10s a week for life and £5 a week to widow if she survived him, man died and N stopped paying, W sued, she could not enforce contract as herself as she was not a party, was able to sue as executor of estate- specific performance of the obligation to pay the pension.

Hint 2

Denning would have let the wife sue on her own but couldn't be bothered.

Front 3

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge & Co

Back 3

D sold tyres to X who sold them to S, D had a price maintenance clause in contract, X couldn't discount the tyres and insisted X put this term in any contracts they made to sell the tyres, with D having the right to sue any subsequent buyers who discounted the tyres, S did discount and D sued and failed as he was not part of the contract between S and X.

Hint 3

Price maintenance clause on tyres.

Front 4

Scruttons v Midland Silicones

Back 4

Contract between a shipper and customer had a limitation clause, limits liability to £179, barrels were damaged by stevedores, they were not part of the contract so could not benefit from the clause, liable for £593.

Hint 4

Stevedores brake barrels.

Front 5

Tulk v Moxhay

Back 5

Restrictive covenants- T owned land, sold to X who agreed not to build on it, after subsequent sales was sold to M, M knew about the restriction but still wanted to build on it, T was able to get an injunction as court would not allow M to disregard limitation that he was fully aware of when he bought the land.

Hint 5

Land in Leicester can't be built on.

Front 6

Lord Strathcoma Steamship

Back 6

Court accepted that a covenant could be applied to a ship in the same way it could be land, purchaser had to fulfill a charter contract which had been made between the seller and a third party, purchased ship knowing about the charter and so were bound to it- later cases suggest this is bad law and it's now doubtful it can be applied in this way.

Hint 6

Restrictive covenants on boats.

Front 7

Shanklin Pier v Detel Products

Back 7

S owned the pier at Shanklin, during war fell into disrepair, wished to revive it, were told by D that their paint lasts 7 years, S instructed maintenance co to buy D's paint and use it on pier, only lasted 6 months, S didn't make direct contract with D but provided them benefit, acted as consideration to form a collateral contract with D so S could sue for breach of promise it would last 7 years.

Hint 7

Paint will last 7 years.

Front 8

Les Affreteurs Reunis v Walford

Back 8

Trust device- where the court has invented a trust in order to allow a third party to enforce a contractual right, was criticised as being artificial and abuse of trust law, later case said they can't be invented in this way- now irrelevant due to CRTPA 1999.

Hint 8

Inventing trusts for 3rd party to sue.

Front 9

Jackson v Horizon Holidays

Back 9

J booked holiday for himself and his family, was poor quality, sued for damages, COA said he could sue on behalf of family- Denning said as they were intended to benefit from the contract then they could sue.

Hint 9

Sue on behalf of family- special cases.

Front 10

Woodar v Wimpey

Back 10

HOL criticised Denning for Jackson as there is no general right for a third party to recover damages on behalf of someone else; could be justified if-

a) plaintiff's damages reflected own disappointments at ruined holiday.

b) as a special category of cases where one person arranges for a whole group.

Hint 10

HOL don't like Dennings' special case.

Front 11

Linden Garden v Lenesta Sludge

Back 11

HOL allowed developer to sue the builders on behalf of eventual users where all parties were aware that the developers would not be the eventual users of the building- narrow grounds- judge put forward broad grounds argument- developer could sue the building co because they had not received the bargain they contracted for- was not accepted by majority but there was sympathy for this 'attack' on principles of privity.

Hint 11

Developers sue on behalf of builders

Front 12

Darlington v Borough Council v Wiltshier

Back 12

Similar issue to Lenesta and court again followed narrow approach, expressing sympathy for the broad.

Hint 12

Similar to Lenesta.

Front 13

Nishin Shipping v Cleaves

Back 13

C were ship chartering brokers, negotiated contracts between N, ship owner and various charterers, clauses stated a 1% commission was payable by owners to C on any hire paid under the charter, due to dispute, N refused to pay commission, C brought a claim to enforce, C was entitled to rely on CRTPA, didn't expressly say that C could sue but it purported to benefit C, commission satisfied benefit, if a contract is silent on rights of 3rd parties the this generally indicates that they are entitled to take advantage of a term which purports to confer a benefit.

Hint 13

1% commission- purports to benefit.

Front 14

The Swedish Club

Back 14

C was a recovery agent trying to sue for money owed to A after a collision of 2 ships- A settled the debt without involving C so C sued to recover the commission there would have been- court said 1(1)(b) didn't apply as arrangement was agency- C was acting on A's behalf and was not intended to have a direct right to enforce.

Hint 14

Agency not 1(1)(b)

Front 15

Avraamdies v Colwill

Back 15

A was a bathroom fitter and C was a client- A did a bad job and was liable to C - before the dispute was settled A sold business to B- agreement stated B would take on any liabilities incurred at the date of sale- court held C could not sue B as they were not expressly ID'd.

Hint 15

Bathroom fitters.