Dutton v Poole (1678)
| Dutton v Poole (1678) | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Decided | 1678 |
| Citation | 2 Lev 211 |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent action | Dutton v Poole CEC (1679) T Raym 302, 83 ER 156. |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Scroggs C.J. |
| Keywords | |
| Privity, third parties, consideration, specific performance | |
Dutton v Poole (1678) is and early and landmark decission in the Court of Chancery.[1][2]
It established the rule that privity of contract[3] and lack of consideration preclude third party suit for breach of a contract. The case has recently been adopted in the House of Lords case Beswick v Beswick [4]
Facts
In this case a son contracted with his father not to fell an Oak wood, and in exchange he would pay £1000 to his sister on her marriage. The sister married after the fathers death, and the son refused to make good the promised £1000.
In this case the sister was permitted to appeal despite the prohibition caused by her not being a party to the contract, on the basis that she was a close family member. Scroggs C.J. held that "apparent consideration of love and affection from the father to his children [means] the consideration and promise to the father may well extend to the children."
An appeal by the son to the Court of Chancery upheald the decision for the sister.[5] The decission was confrimed in Martyn v Hind[6] and cited in Drive Yourself Hire Co v Strutt.[7]
This exception has not been part of the common law since 1884,[8] and was directly refuted in Tweddle v Atkinson.[9]
See also
- English contract law
- Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B&S 393, the traditional rule of privity
- Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, affirming the privity rule 250 years later in a resale price maintenance case.
- Sprat v Agar[10]
- The Physicians case[11]
References
- ^ Vernon V. Palmer, The Paths to Privity: The History of the Third Party Beneficiary Contracts. (The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 1992) p75.
- ^ Roy Kreitner, Calculating Promises: The Emergence of Modern American Contract Doctrine (Stanford University Press, 2006) p30.
- ^ Dutton v Poole (1678) 2 Lev 210]]
- ^ Beswick v Beswick [1967] UKHL 2.
- ^ Dutton v Poole CEC (1679) T Raym 302, 83 ER 156.
- ^ Martyn v Hind (1776) 2 Cowp 437, 98 ER 1174)
- ^ Drive Yourself Hire Co (London) Ltd v Strutt CA ([1954] 1 QB 250)
- ^ Thomas A. Street, The History and Theory of English Contract Law. (Beard Books, 1999) p153.
- ^ Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) I B&S 393, 101 ECL393.
- ^ Sprat v Agar (1658) 2 Sid 115. (Greys Inn Library Manuscript H-1792.
- ^ 1 Vent 6.