TWEDDLE VERSUS ATKINSON - (Case Commentary)
INTRODUCTION:
English
contract law is a said body of law which regulates contracts in England and
Wales. According to which a contract is referred to an agreement enforceable in
court because a contract is a voluntary obligation which is a legally binding
document that recognises and speaks about the right and duties of the parties
in the agreement generally a contract involves exchange of goods, services, money or promise of any of those.
In
civil tradition, contract law is a branch of the law of obligations which is
based on pacta sunt servanda[1],
a brocard that is a basic principle of Civil law, Cannon law and International
law. Ordinary, a contract is formed when one person makes an offer and another
person accept the given offer by communicating his assent or by performing the
offer as termed keeping consideration in mind; where consideration refers to a
special word which means to something that have value in the eyes of law. It is
one of the essential ingredient to make a contract and for legally binding it. It
should be noted that a consideration must be moved from the promisee as the
promisor has already made a promise to the promisee, which makes formation of
contract sufficient from one side of the party.
Further
in relation to English contract law, the Doctrine of Privity of contract is important
to take notice of. In simplest form, it can be stated as the relationship
between parties to a contract and other party or agent. Here, the fundamental
rule is that a contract can neither give right to, nor imposes obligation on,
any one who is not a party to the actual agreement who is also known as the
third party. This doctrine emerged in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth-century through well known cases like Tweddle versus Atkinson
in 1861 and Dunlop Pneumatic versus Selfridge and Co. Ltd.
in 1915[2]
but after passing of the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act in 1999[3]
a significant change was observed as it allowed third party to enforce the
terms of a contract if he or she is specifically authorised to do so in the
given contract.
BACKGROUND:
Moving
forward towards the given famous Case Law of Tweddle versus Atkinson[4]
where the case concerns with the principle of privity of contract and consideration
where a couple were getting married namely William Tweddle and Ms. Guy. The Father of the bridegroom
John Tweddle and the Father of the bride William Guy entered into a agreement
containing clauses which stated that they both would pay a sum of money £100 and
£200 respectively but unfortunately before the payment of the sum of £200 the
father of the bride William Guy died. Thereafter,
before suing the other party for claim as per the agreement the father of the
bridegroom died too. As a result, bridegroom William Tweddle brought a claim
against the executor of the will of
William Guy namely Mr. Atkinson, for the promised £200 which was not paid by
the executor Mr. Atkinson.
The
primary issue raised was whether or not the son (son-in-law), as the third party
to the given agreement from which he and his wife (daughter) was benefited from
the agreement could enforce the contract between the father and the father-in-law
that it does William Tweddle have
standing to sue for enforcement of the contracts between the fathers or the parties
to the actual agreement or in other way that who can bring enforcement of a
contract?
The
above mentioned case was taking in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s bench Division where the judges sitting
were Wightman J, Cromptom J and Blackburn J who held that the plaintiff i.e., William Tweddle claim fails and he cannot
enforce the same as he was not the party to the said agreement, Thus, the
consideration does not move to him. The Honorable Court rejected his claim as
the agreement was between Late William Guy and Late John Twiddle and he did not
provide any consideration for the promise. Nonetheless, the court found favour
for the defendant, the executor of the will of William Guy.
Each of
the three Judges gave their opinions, which as follows:
·
Wightman stated a case precedent that a stranger to
the consideration of a promise can still have an action only if the
relationship between them is relatives close enough[5]. But, despite of the precedent, he maintains
that no stranger to the consideration can take action, even though it was for
his or her benefits.
·
Crompton
evaluated whether natural love and affection out of the marriage can be considered
as consideration from the son. It was held that it was not sufficient for being
consideration
for the said agreement.
·
Blackburn dealt with an agency of argument that
natural love and affection dribble from the father to the
son and this entitles son to sue in his father's place which was not sufficient
for the terms of consideration.
ANALYSIS:
Upon analysing each and every facts and statements given
by the Honorable Court it can be concluded that the court’s decision was fairly
appropriate. As stated in the case of Price
versus Easton[6]
that an action for breach of contract can/must be brought by a person who moves
the consideration of the agreement. Though there can be various aspects of
exceptions such as in the case of contract made between parents for providing
their own children etc.
It should be taken into notice that both the concepts of privity of contract and doctrine of
consideration emerged along side stating
that consideration must move from the promise and if nothing is given for the
promise then that promise is not legally binding. Further, on simultaneous
observation it can be noted that in the above mentioned case no new changes
were made in the law though it was an important connection to understand the concept of privity of
contract and doctrine of consideration in the English contract law which
subsequently played a key role in development of the concept of negligence. However,
the Doctrine of Privity of contract was further developed in the case of Dunlop
Pneumatic versus Selfridge and Co. Ltd.[7]
through the judgement of Lord Haldane.
In question of consistency in the similar case, namely Price
versus Easton as mentioned by the defendants representative. It can be put
forward that a contract was formed between parties stating that X owed the
plaintiff an amount. X agreed to complete work for the defendant for in
exchange of payment and clearing his debt of the plaintiff but the same was not
cleared by the defendant. In other words,
the work was said to be done by X in exchange for payment to another party
which was not fulfilled. Likewise to the above case, when the third-party
attempted to sue for the said payment his claim was held not maintainable by
the Honorable Court. Therefore, it failed.
To reasonate that the decision put forward by the court in the favour
of the defendant i.e., Mr Atkinson all the three judges gave the fair share of their statement explaining the
importance and connection of the doctrine of Privity of contract and doctrine
of consideration as mentioned above where it was interpreted that the third
party to a side contract do not derive any right from the contract nor the third
party is subjected to any burden imposed by the contract. And most importantly
it was observed natural love and affection is not sufficient as consideration
in the eyes of law.
However, the point presented by the plaintiff representative should be taken into
notice, who pointed out the exception in the case of contract made between
parents for the purpose of providing for their children. To emphasize the case of
Dutton and wife versus Poole[8]
where it was observed that the natural relationship between the father and son
constitutes the father as agent for the son and therefore the latter may
maintain an action upon it. But the same was overruled by Justice Blackburn stating
that, “there is a distinct ground on what that case cannot be supported.” And the
judgement came in favour of the defendant.
In contrast, if the judgement would have been in favour
to the plaintiff then it would have been violative to the doctrine of Privity
of contract and the doctrine of consideration but with time and progress this
concept of doctrine of Privity of contract has been criticized by various ways.
As, it has been proven problematic as it implicates the benefit of the third
party who are unable to enforce the obligation. And to find a innovative solution to the
problem Contract (rights of third party) Act, 1999[9]
was created by statutory exception to privity.
Contract (rights of third party) Act, 1999 allowed third
party to enforce terms the contract that benefited them in some way or the
other; or which the contract allowed them to enforce. It also granted the
third party the access to a range of remedies, if the contract was breached.
CONCLUSION
To conclude it can be stated that the prospective of Court was all in all based upon the following
reasoning:
·
Firstly, third party cannot enforce a contract and the plaintiff William Tweddle was the third party to the
above mentioned contract.
·
Secondly, consideration must be moved from the promisee for the
enforcement which did not happen in the case.
·
Lastly, the groom William Tweddle i.e., third party did not provide any consideration for the
promise.
So as to reinforce the doctrine of Privity and the doctrine of consideration the court meant that the party to the agreement can sue or be sued on it. Thus, it could establish the principle that consideration must flow from the promisee.
[1]
Agreement must be kept.
[2] UKHL 1, AC 847
[3] An Act of
the Parliament
of the United Kingdom on 11 November 1999
[4] [1861] EWHC J57 (QB)
[5]
Bourne v Mason, 1669
[6] (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 433
[7] UKHL 1, AC 847
[8]
2 Lev 211
[9]
1999 c. 31
Comments
Post a Comment