Privity
Mrs Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend. The friend brought her a bottle of ginger beer and an ice cream. The ginger beer came in an opaque bottle so that the contents could not be seen. Mrs Donoghue poured half the contents of the bottle over her ice cream and also drank some from the bottle. After eating part of the ice cream, she then poured the remaining contents of the bottle over the ice cream and a decomposed snail emerged from the bottle. Mrs Donoghue suffered personal injury as a result
Donoghue v Stevenson
Dunlop sold tyres to dealers. Part of the deal was that the dealers would not sell the tyres below a recommended retail price. Dunlop also required all dealers to obtain the same agreement from whoever they sold the tyres on to. Dunlop sold the tyres to Dew & Co. Dew & Co sold tyres to Selfridges who sold the tyres below the recommended retail price. Dunlop sued Selfridge.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge
Mr Tweddle and Mr Guy came to an agreement that when their children married they would each pay the son/son-in-law a sum of money. Mr Tweddle paid his son the money and died shortly after. Mr Guy died before his payment was made. Mr Tweddle (Jnr) sued the executor of Mr Guy’s estate, Mr Atkinson for the payment.
Tweddle v Atkinson
Shanklin told contractors to use Detel paint to paint the pier. Contractors brought the paint directly from Detel. Detel claimed on the tin that the pain would last for 7 years. It lasted for just 3 months. Whilst Shanklin did not contract with Detel, the court held that there was a collateral contract between them that the paint would last. The consideration was that the contractors were told to buy from Detel.
Shanklin Pier v Detel Products
Tulk sold a plot of land to a purchaser, who covenanted not to build (restrictive covenant). Moxhay refused to comply with the restrictive covenant, even though he knew of its existence when he purchased the land. Could Tulk (who no longer owned the land) obtain an injunction to prevent Moxhay from building on the square? The courts said yes, Moxhay had notice of it - so a covenant is a way in which the strict rules of privity do not apply.
Tulk v Moxhay
Using the common law doctrine of privity explain why Mrs Beswick was unable to seek the payment (ignore the fact she was the Executor of the Will). Use case law to substantiate your answer. Mrs Beswick was unable to seek the payments from her nephew as she was a third party to the contract. Under the common law of doctrine of privity, a third party cannot sue or be sued by the parties within a contract. Now, using the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, apply the Act to the situation and decide whether or not the Act would allow Mrs Beswick to claim. You must be specific in your use of the Act in your response.
Beswick v Beswick