PRIVITY/FRUSTRATION Cases Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 1 B&S 393 Facts · 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. Issue . The primary issue for the court was whether or not the son could, as a third party to the agreement, enforce the contract between the fathers, which was ultimately for the benefit of him and his wife. It was argued that the intention of the agreement between the fathers was for the couple to derive a benefit from the payment of the money. Moreover, it was argued that preventing the son from being able to enforce the contract would effectively ignore the intention of the fathers. Held . The groom's claim was rejected by the court. It was held that the groom was not a part of the agreement between the fathers and he did not provide any consideration for the promise made by the father of the bride. Also, as a stranger to the contract, the son could not enforce it. On this basis, the court found in favour for the executor of the will. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847 Facts . Dunlop was a tire manufacturer who agreed with their dealer to not sell the tires below a recommended retail price (RRP). As part of the agreement, Dunlop also required their dealers to gain the same agreement with their retailers, who in this instance was Selfridge. The agreement held that if tires were sold below the RRP, they would be required to pay £5 per tire in damages to Dunlop. This was agreed between the dealer and Selfridges, which effectively made Dunlop a third-party to that agreement. Sometime after this, Selfridge sold the tires below the agreed price and Dunlop sued for damages and an injunction to prevent them from continuing this activity. At the initial trial, the decision was given to Dunlop. This was appealed by Selfridge and the decision was reversed. Dunlop appealed. Issue · Selfridge argued that Dunlop could not enforce the contract as Dunlop was not part of the agreement between the dealer and Selfridges. On this basis, the question for the court was whether Dunlop had the right to access damages without a contractual relationship. Held
. The court held in a unanimous decision that Dunlop could not claim for damages in the circumstances. The court found that firstly, only a party to a contract can claim upon it. Secondly, Dunlop had not