Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 1 B&S 393

KEY POINTS

• Generally, only parties to a contract can sue for its breach. The Plaintiff, William Tweddle, was not a party to the agreement between his father and father-in-law.

• To have standing to sue, the consideration must move from the party who is suing. In this case, the consideration came from the fathers, not from the plaintiff.

• Modern courts require direct consideration for a party to sue on a contract. Older cases allowing third parties to sue based on "natural love and affection" are not generally followed today.

• The court ruled that the Plaintiff could not sue because he was not a party to the contract and the consideration did not move from him, affirming the modern approach to contract law.

FACTS

• The case involved William Tweddle, who sued for breach of a contract between his father, John Tweddle, and his father-in-law, William Guy.

  • Before his marriage to Guy's daughter, both fathers verbally promised marriage portions but did not fulfill them.

  • To enforce these promises, the two fathers entered into a written agreement on July 11th, 1855, in which Guy agreed to pay 200 pounds to Tweddle, and John Tweddle agreed to pay 100 pounds to his son.

  • The agreement stated that William Tweddle could sue if the amounts were not paid by August 21st, 1855.

  • The deadline passed without payment.

• Tweddle sued, but the defense argued that he couldn't because he wasn't a direct party to the agreement's consideration.

• The court agreed with the defense, ruling that Tweddle couldn't sue because he hadn't provided the consideration for the contract.

  • This decision aligned with modern legal principles stating that only parties who provide consideration can sue for breach of contract.

JUDGEMENT

• The court ruled in favor of the Defendant, stating that the Plaintiff, William Tweddle, could not sue for breach of a contract between his father, John Tweddle, and his father-in-law, William Guy.

  • This was because he was not a party to the contract and provided no consideration for it, thereby lacking the legal right to enforce it.

  • The ruling reaffirmed the principle of "privity of contract," which restricts legal action to parties directly involved in a contract. 

• The court dismissed the argument that natural love and affection could act as sufficient consideration, reinforcing that only those providing consideration can sue for breach.

• Thus, the judgment for the Defendant was based on these points: only those with privity and who give consideration can enforce a contract.

COMMENTARY

• This case highlights a principle in contract law: generally, only parties to a contract who have provided consideration can sue for its breach.

  • William Tweddle, the Plaintiff, sued for breach of a contract made between his father, John Tweddle, and his father-in-law, William Guy, related to marriage portions promised before his marriage to Guy's daughter.

• Despite the agreement explicitly stating that William Tweddle could sue if the fathers did not fulfill their payment promises, the court ruled that he had no standing because he did not provide consideration.

  • This decision aligns with modern legal doctrine, which requires that the party seeking to enforce a contract must have contributed consideration.

• The ruling reaffirmed the principle of "privity of contract," ensuring that only those directly involved in a contract and who provide consideration can sue for its breach.

  • The court dismissed the argument that natural love and affection could replace the need for consideration, reinforcing the modern view of contract law.

• This outcome serves as a reminder of the importance of including intended beneficiaries as parties to a contract if they are to have enforceable rights. It also shows the need for a clear understanding of privity and consideration in contractual agreements.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Plaintiff was engaged and Defendant (wife’s father) and X (Plaintiff’s father) contracted to pay Plaintiff some money each upon marriage.

• Plaintiff sued Defendant for non-payment, but the court held that even though the contract explicitly stated that he should have the power to sue either of the parties to the contract, as a TP he could not enforce this right. 

Blackburn J

• In general no action can be maintained upon a promise unless consideration moves from the party to whom it was made. In this case Plaintiff gave no consideration so the promise was unenforceable.

RELATED CASES

• Scruttons v Midland Silicones

• Smith & Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Bd