Why couldn’t Dunlop sue Selfridge directly?

Because there was no privity of contract between them and no consideration moved from Dunlop to Selfridge. Only parties to a contract can sue on it.

What is the privity rule shown in this case?

A third party to a contract cannot enforce it. Rights and duties are limited to the contracting parties.

Was there any way Dunlop could have succeeded?

Yes, if Dew had acted as Dunlop’s authorized agent when contracting with Selfridge, Dunlop might have sued on that agency contract.

How does consideration connect to privity here?

Consideration must move from the promisee. Selfridge gave no consideration to Dunlop, so Dunlop had no enforceable promise against Selfridge.

dunlop-pneumatic-tyre-company-v-selfridge-1915

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge ([1915] AC 79)

Core rule: only parties to a contract can sue. A clear, classroom-style walkthrough with timeline, IRAC, mnemonics, and FAQs.

House of Lords 1915 Appellate Committee [1915] AC 79 Contract (Privity & Consideration) ~6 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi · India · Published: 26 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

Dunlop (a tyre maker) sold tyres to Dew at a discount. Dew promised not to sell below a fixed price and to make its buyers keep that promise. Dew then sold to Selfridge, who sold below the price. Dunlop sued Selfridge. The House of Lords said no: there was no privity and no consideration between Dunlop and Selfridge. Only parties to a contract can sue on it.

```

Issues

Can Dunlop sue Selfridge without a contract between them?
Does any exception (like agency) allow enforcement?

Rules

Privity of Contract

Only those who are parties to a contract can sue upon it.

Consideration Must Move

Consideration must move from the promisee. No consideration → no enforceable promise.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline chain: Dunlop → Dew → Selfridge, price undertaking broken

Dunlop → Dew: Discount supply; Dew promises no undercutting.

Downstream term: Dew must bind its buyers to the no undercutting clause.

Dew → Selfridge: Sale made; Selfridge agrees with Dew but later sells below price.

Dispute: Dunlop sues Selfridge for breach of the price clause.

Outcome: Claim fails—no privity or consideration between Dunlop and Selfridge.

Arguments

Appellant (Dunlop)

Selfridge knew of the resale price clause via Dew.
Price cutting harmed Dunlop’s market; clause should be enforceable.
Alternatively: Dew acted as agent for Dunlop in taking promises from Selfridge.

Respondent (Selfridge)

No privity with Dunlop; contract is with Dew only.
No consideration moved from Dunlop to Selfridge.
No agency—Dew acted on its own account.

Judgment

Held: For Selfridge. Dunlop could not sue because there was no contractual link (privity) and no consideration from Dunlop to Selfridge.

Exception noted: If Dew had truly been Dunlop’s agent when taking Selfridge’s promise, Dunlop might have enforced it—on proof of agency.

Ratio Decidendi

A person who is not a party to a contract cannot sue on it. Also, to enforce a promise, consideration must move from the promisee. Without either, the claim fails, unless an agency relationship is proven.

Why It Matters

Classic authority on the privity rule and consideration.
Guides how to structure downstream restrictions (use agency or separate contracts).
Important for distribution and price maintenance arrangements.

Key Takeaways

No privity → no suit.
No consideration from promisee → no enforcement.
Use agency or direct contracts to bind downstream sellers.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Party Pays, Party Sues.”

Party: Be a contracting party.
Pays: Consideration must move from you.
Sues: Only then can you enforce.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Could Dunlop enforce the resale price promise against Selfridge?

Rule

Privity: only parties can sue. Consideration must move from the promisee. Agency can create a link.

Application

No contract or consideration between Dunlop and Selfridge; agency not proved.

Conclusion

Dunlop’s claim fails; only Dew could sue Selfridge on their contract.

Glossary

Privity of Contract: Rule that only contracting parties can enforce the contract.
Consideration: Something of value given in exchange for a promise.
Agency: A relationship where one person acts on behalf of another with authority.