Tweddle vs. Atkinson, 1861

John Tweddle and William Guy (two fathers) entered into an agreement where both promised to pay a sum of money to John Tweddle’s son, William Tweddle, upon his marriage to William Guy’s daughter. This was a formal contract between the two fathers, and the payments were to be made for the benefit of William Tweddle.

• The son and daughter of the parties involved in this dispute were getting married. 
• As such, the father of the groom and father of the bride entered into an agreement that they would both pay sums of money to the couple. 
• Unfortunately, the father of the bride died before he paid the money to the couple and the father of the son died before he could sue on the agreement between the parties. 
• As a result of this, the groom brought a claim against the executor of the will for the payment that was previously agreed between the fathers.

1. Whether the plaintiff can enforce the agreement between John Tweddle and William Guy as a Third Party?

Plaintiff Argument:-

1. That before this suit, he and his wife who is still living ratified and assented to the said agreement, and that he is the William Tweddle therein mentioned.
2. Plaintiff also said that things done and happen necessary for the benefit.
3. The amount paid by the William Guy or his executor, yet neither the said William Guy nor his executor has paid the same and the same is in arrear and unpaid, contrary to the said agreement.

Defendant Argument:-

1. The Defendant argue that the plaintiff is a stranger to agreement and to the consideration as stated in the declaration and therefore cannot  sue upon the contract.
2. It is now settled that an action for breach of contract must be brought by the person from whom the consideration moved. 

JUDGMENT:-

• The court held that the suit would not succeed as no stranger to the consideration may enforce a contract, although made for his benefit. 
• The court ruled that a promisee cannot bring an action unless the consideration of the promisee moved to him. 
• Consideration must move from party entitled to sue upon the contract. No legal entitlement is conferred on third parties to an agreement.
• Third parties to a contract do not derive any rights from that agreement nor are they subject to any burdens imposed by it. 
• It was left unanswered if the groom's father could have successfully sued the estate instead.

• The claimant was not a party to the agreement as he had not provided consideration for it. He therefore had no power to sue to enforce the contract.
• The doctrine of privity meant that only those who are party to an agreement (outside of one of the well-established exceptional relationships such as agency, bailment or trusteeship) may sue or be sued on it and established the principle that "consideration must flow from the promise".
• That since William Tweddle was not a part of agreement between John Tweddle and William Guy, and since he did not provide any consideration in exchange for William Guy, hence the court did not enforce the agreement.

This case reinforced the principle that a third party cannot enforce contractual obligations made between other parties, even if the contract is intended to benefit them.