UNDER THE RULE OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT
BENCH: Whitman J, Crompton J, Blackwell J
FACTS:
- Marriage was going to take place between the son and daughter of the parties
- There was an agreement that was entered between the father of the groom and father of the bride stipulating that parties would both pay sums of money to the couple.
- However the father of the bride died before he paid the money to the couple and the father of the son died before he could sue on the agreement between the parties.
- a claim was brought by the groom against the executor of the will for the payment that was previously agreed between the fathers.
ISSUE:
- Whether the son could enforce the contract between the fathers as a third party to the agreement
PLAINTIFF’s CONTENTIONS:
- That the intention of the agreement between the fathers was for the couple to derive a benefit from the payment of the money.
- That preventing the son from enforcing the contract would effectively ignore the intention of the fathers.
DEFENDANT’s CONTENTIONS:
- That the plaintiff is a stranger to the agreement and to the consideration
- That the action for breach of contract must be brought by the person from whom the consideration moved:
JUDGEMENT:
The court rejected the claims of the groom and it was held that the groom was not a part of the agreement between the fathers. The plaintiff did not pay any sort of consideration in respect of the promises made by the father of the bride. Being a stranger to the contract, the son cannot sue or enforce the agreement. The decision was found in the favour of the executors of the will.
