Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
15 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
Tweddle v Atkinson |
Father and Father in law wanted to give money to newly married young man, father would give £100 and father in law £200, man would have right to sue to enforce, father paid but father in law died and as the young man gave no consideration and wasn't a party, he could not enforce. |
Father and father in law pay young man. |
|
Beswick v Beswick |
Man sold business to nephew in consideration for £6 10s a week for life and £5 a week to widow if she survived him, man died and N stopped paying, W sued, she could not enforce contract as herself as she was not a party, was able to sue as executor of estate- specific performance of the obligation to pay the pension. |
Denning would have let the wife sue on her own but couldn't be bothered. |
|
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge & Co |
D sold tyres to X who sold them to S, D had a price maintenance clause in contract, X couldn't discount the tyres and insisted X put this term in any contracts they made to sell the tyres, with D having the right to sue any subsequent buyers who discounted the tyres, S did discount and D sued and failed as he was not part of the contract between S and X. |
Price maintenance clause on tyres. |
|
Scruttons v Midland Silicones |
Contract between a shipper and customer had a limitation clause, limits liability to £179, barrels were damaged by stevedores, they were not part of the contract so could not benefit from the clause, liable for £593. |
Stevedores brake barrels. |
|
Tulk v Moxhay |
Restrictive covenants- T owned land, sold to X who agreed not to build on it, after subsequent sales was sold to M, M knew about the restriction but still wanted to build on it, T was able to get an injunction as court would not allow M to disregard limitation that he was fully aware of when he bought the land. |
Land in Leicester can't be built on. |
|
Lord Strathcoma Steamship |
Court accepted that a covenant could be applied to a ship in the same way it could be land, purchaser had to fulfill a charter contract which had been made between the seller and a third party, purchased ship knowing about the charter and so were bound to it- later cases suggest this is bad law and it's now doubtful it can be applied in this way. |
Restrictive covenants on boats. |
|
Shanklin Pier v Detel Products |
S owned the pier at Shanklin, during war fell into disrepair, wished to revive it, were told by D that their paint lasts 7 years, S instructed maintenance co to buy D's paint and use it on pier, only lasted 6 months, S didn't make direct contract with D but provided them benefit, acted as consideration to form a collateral contract with D so S could sue for breach of promise it would last 7 years. |
Paint will last 7 years. |
|
Les Affreteurs Reunis v Walford |
Trust device- where the court has invented a trust in order to allow a third party to enforce a contractual right, was criticised as being artificial and abuse of trust law, later case said they can't be invented in this way- now irrelevant due to CRTPA 1999. |
Inventing trusts for 3rd party to sue. |
|
Jackson v Horizon Holidays |
J booked holiday for himself and his family, was poor quality, sued for damages, COA said he could sue on behalf of family- Denning said as they were intended to benefit from the contract then they could sue. |
Sue on behalf of family- special cases. |
|
Woodar v Wimpey |
HOL criticised Denning for Jackson as there is no general right for a third party to recover damages on behalf of someone else; could be justified if- a) plaintiff's damages reflected own disappointments at ruined holiday. b) as a special category of cases where one person arranges for a whole group. |
HOL don't like Dennings' special case. |
|
Linden Garden v Lenesta Sludge |
HOL allowed developer to sue the builders on behalf of eventual users where all parties were aware that the developers would not be the eventual users of the building- narrow grounds- judge put forward broad grounds argument- developer could sue the building co because they had not received the bargain they contracted for- was not accepted by majority but there was sympathy for this 'attack' on principles of privity. |
Developers sue on behalf of builders |
|
Darlington v Borough Council v Wiltshier |
Similar issue to Lenesta and court again followed narrow approach, expressing sympathy for the broad. |
Similar to Lenesta. |
|
Nishin Shipping v Cleaves |
C were ship chartering brokers, negotiated contracts between N, ship owner and various charterers, clauses stated a 1% commission was payable by owners to C on any hire paid under the charter, due to dispute, N refused to pay commission, C brought a claim to enforce, C was entitled to rely on CRTPA, didn't expressly say that C could sue but it purported to benefit C, commission satisfied benefit, if a contract is silent on rights of 3rd parties the this generally indicates that they are entitled to take advantage of a term which purports to confer a benefit. |
1% commission- purports to benefit. |
|
The Swedish Club |
C was a recovery agent trying to sue for money owed to A after a collision of 2 ships- A settled the debt without involving C so C sued to recover the commission there would have been- court said 1(1)(b) didn't apply as arrangement was agency- C was acting on A's behalf and was not intended to have a direct right to enforce. |
Agency not 1(1)(b) |
|
Avraamdies v Colwill |
A was a bathroom fitter and C was a client- A did a bad job and was liable to C - before the dispute was settled A sold business to B- agreement stated B would take on any liabilities incurred at the date of sale- court held C could not sue B as they were not expressly ID'd. |
Bathroom fitters. |