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?

• 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.