Tweddle v Atkinson: Rule of privity of Contract

(Landmark Judgement)

In this case, William Tweddle brought a lawsuit to enforce a contract made between his father, John Tweddle, and his father-in-law, William Guy. Before William's marriage to Guy’s daughter, both fathers had agreed to provide a financial settlement as part of the marriage arrangement. To formalize this, they entered into a written agreement on July 11, 1855, in which Guy agreed to pay £200 and John Tweddle agreed to pay £100 to William. The contract also mentioned that William Tweddle could sue if the payment was not made by August 21, 1855. However, the payments were not made by the deadline. William sued for breach of contract, but the defense argued that he had no right to sue since he was not a direct party to the contract and had not provided any consideration himself.

You can also read the latest judgment of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Case.

For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]

Issue before the Court

The main issue before the Court in this case was whether a person who is not a party to contract can sue on its breach?

Analysis of the Court

In the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861), the court dealt with the important principle of privity of contract, which means that only those who are directly involved in a contract can enforce its terms or be held responsible under it. In this case, William Tweddle tried to sue to enforce an agreement made between his father and his father-in-law, which promised him money. However, the court held that William could not enforce the contract because he was not a party to it, even though he was clearly meant to benefit from it. The court also noted that consideration had come from his father, not William himself. Since he had provided no consideration and wasn’t a contracting party, he had no legal right to sue. This case firmly established the rule that third parties, even if named in the contract, cannot enforce it, and it remains a landmark precedent in contract law. The decision continues to influence how courts interpret contracts involving third-party beneficiaries.

Posted By: Manas shrivastava

Back