Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861) — Privity of Contract & Consideration
Primary: privity of contract; consideration; third-party rights
Secondary: marriage settlement; enforcement by beneficiaries; stranger to contract
Quick Summary
Two fathers agreed to pay money after a marriage. The groom tried to sue for the payment. The Court said no: he was a stranger to the contract and had given no consideration. This case is the classic rule on privity.
- Only parties to a contract can sue on it.
- Someone who gave no consideration cannot enforce the promise.
Issues
- Can a third party (the groom) enforce an agreement made between the two fathers?
Rules
- Privity of contract: a stranger to the contract cannot sue on it.
- Consideration: to enforce a promise, some value must move from the person suing.
Facts — Timeline
Optional
Marriage Agreement
Father of the groom and father of the bride agree each will pay money after the marriage.
Right to Sue Clause
The document speaks of a right to sue, but the groom is not a party to that contract.
Death & Non-payment
One father dies. The estate does not pay the promised sum.
Suit Filed
The groom sues for the money relying on the agreement between the fathers.
Arguments — Appellant vs Respondent
Groom (Plaintiff)
- The agreement intended him to be paid; he should be able to enforce it.
- Marriage happened relying on the promise.
Estate (Defendant)
- The groom is not a party to the fathers’ contract.
- No consideration moved from the groom to support his claim.
Judgment
For the Defendant
The Court held that the groom could not sue. He was a stranger to the contract and had given no consideration. Any clause trying to let him sue could not beat the privity rule.
Ratio Decidendi
- Only a partyconsideration can enforce a contract.
- A third party beneficiary cannot sue under common law privity.
Why It Matters
This case sets the foundation for third-party rights debates. It explains why many legal systems later made statutory exceptions to privity, but the core principle remains central in contract law teaching.
Key Takeaways
- Privity: strangers can’t sue on a contract.
- Consideration: must move from the claimant.
- Intent alone does not create enforcement rights.
- Use trust/assignment/statute to benefit third parties.
- Draft clear beneficiary clauses with legal routes.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “NO PACT” — No Privity • And Consideration Threshold
- No Privity: Not a party? No action.
- Consideration: Claimant must give value.
- Threshold: Benefit alone is not enough.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Can the groom, a third party, enforce the fathers’ payment agreement?
Rule
Privity + consideration: only a party who provided value may sue on the contract.
Application
The groom did not contract with the fathers and gave no consideration to them.
Conclusion
He cannot sue. The claim fails under the privity rule.
Glossary (Easy English)
- Privity
- Legal link between contracting parties; outsiders have no rights.
- Consideration
- Value exchanged for a promise (benefit/detriment) that supports enforcement.
- Third-Party Beneficiary
- A person who benefits from a contract but is not a party to it.
Student FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now