Dutton v Poole (1678)

Dutton v Poole (1678)
Court House of Lords
Decided 1678
Citation(s) 2 Lev 211
Case history
Subsequent action(s) Dutton v Poole CEC (1679) T Raym 302, 83 ER 156.
Court membership
Judge(s) 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

References

  1. Vernon V. Palmer, The Paths to Privity: The History of the Third Party Beneficiary Contracts. (The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 1992) p75.
  2. Roy Kreitner, Calculating Promises: The Emergence of Modern American Contract Doctrine (Stanford University Press, 2006) p30.
  3. Dutton v Poole (1678) 2 Lev 210]]
  4. Beswick v Beswick [1967] UKHL 2.
  5. Dutton v Poole CEC (1679) T Raym 302, 83 ER 156.
  6. Martyn v Hind (1776) 2 Cowp 437, 98 ER 1174)
  7. Drive Yourself Hire Co (London) Ltd v Strutt CA ([1954] 1 QB 250)
  8. Thomas A. Street, The History and Theory of English Contract Law. (Beard Books, 1999) p153.
  9. Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) I B&S 393, 101 ECL393.
  10. Sprat v Agar (1658) 2 Sid 115. (Greys Inn Library Manuscript H-1792.
  11. 1 Vent 6.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.