FINAL ESSAY OF CONTRACT LAW”
In the field of English contract law any contractual parties are alleged to take benefit from the terms of
the contract or any action against each other in terms of the breach of contractual obligation. The
principles create certainty in common law that it provides the right to sue the parties of the contract
only. Accordingly, the commercial business also flourishes in the essence that except parties t the
contract no one allowed to sue them in the breach of the contract. However, the law at certain extent
creates complication in terms of the right of the third party where the contract are solely drafted for
their purpose but due to this principal they are not allowed to take benefit from the contract or sue the
contracting parties. In this regard the courts intervene in the matter and tried to solved the problem by
developing the mechanism which protect the rights of the third party but the drawback of the common
law principle was that they are based on the facts of the cases where courts initiates the mechanism for
third party rights. In the current scenario, the Act of Parliament is introduced to provide rights to the
third party in the contract, this development in English law had the significant importance as now the
rights of the third party will also be enforceable. In the essay below, we shall be discussing the rights of
third party with respect to common law and the Parliament (“P”) along the analysis whether the law
developed creates certainty in English law or not.
First, we shall determine the common law devices related to the third-party rights. In the case of (Tweddle
v Atkinson) [1861] at common law “the parties to the contract cannot take benefit or put burden on the
third party as only parties to the contract have obligation to enforce the rights on each other. For instance,
in the case of (Dunlop Pneumatic Tire v Selfridge & Co) [1915] where “Dunlop sold the tyre to dew with
certain conditions in relation to this the Dew form the contract with Selfridge & Co with same condition,
however, the condition was breached by the Selfridge & Co but cannot be sued by the Dunlop as it was
not party to contract. Similar principle is reaffirmed in the case of (Scruton’s Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd
(1962) and (Beswick v Beswick) [1969]. However, the law is creating injustice in number of cases
therefore provide justice to the parties the courts established the law related to the third party on the basis
of case to case facts: Firstly, the party to the contract can also get the benefit in place of the third party
from the promisor. However, issues also come in place as the party was also unable to enforce the benefit
of third party or may be unwilling, primarily to get the damages the party has to must suffer the lost
which he did know as the contract does not recognize the interest of x party to get the performance of the
contract for third party (Pinetown v Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd). Due to these reasons the courts
create certain circumstances where damages can be quantified to the third party where the main purpose
of forming the contract is to benefit the third party. In the case of multiple booking the party to the
contract can get the benefit of third party on his behalf as seen in (Jackson v Horizon Halliday’s) where
the contract of booking was formed for holidays for himself and his family, however, the breach occur he
can claim the damages for himself and behalf of his family. This approach was limited in the case of
(Woodar v Wimpey construction). Secondly, the contracts made with carriers to deliver the goods of
buyer, it can be understood by the case of (Albazero) where the Albazero come into the two contract one
with carrier after that enter into the second contract with buyer to sell of goods. As no contract of carrier
will be formed with buyer. Accordingly, the carrier has to deliver the goods, he had no concerned in
relation that if good got damaged in any way, however, in this situation the seller can get the
compensation on behalf of the buyer. Thirdly, the contract was formed that the subject matter will be
acquired by the third party, as the main purpose of the execution of the contract is to provide the subject
matter of the third party, according to the case of (linden Gardens Trust v Lenesta Sludge). Lastly, an
order for the promisor to perform, as the courts some time grant the specific performance or rejection to
In the field of English contract law any contractual parties are alleged to take benefit from the terms of
the contract or any action against each other in terms of the breach of contractual obligation. The
principles create certainty in common law that it provides the right to sue the parties of the contract
only. Accordingly, the commercial business also flourishes in the essence that except parties t the
contract no one allowed to sue them in the breach of the contract. However, the law at certain extent
creates complication in terms of the right of the third party where the contract are solely drafted for
their purpose but due to this principal they are not allowed to take benefit from the contract or sue the
contracting parties. In this regard the courts intervene in the matter and tried to solved the problem by
developing the mechanism which protect the rights of the third party but the drawback of the common
law principle was that they are based on the facts of the cases where courts initiates the mechanism for
third party rights. In the current scenario, the Act of Parliament is introduced to provide rights to the
third party in the contract, this development in English law had the significant importance as now the
rights of the third party will also be enforceable. In the essay below, we shall be discussing the rights of
third party with respect to common law and the Parliament (“P”) along the analysis whether the law
developed creates certainty in English law or not.
First, we shall determine the common law devices related to the third-party rights. In the case of (Tweddle
v Atkinson) [1861] at common law “the parties to the contract cannot take benefit or put burden on the
third party as only parties to the contract have obligation to enforce the rights on each other. For instance,
in the case of (Dunlop Pneumatic Tire v Selfridge & Co) [1915] where “Dunlop sold the tyre to dew with
certain conditions in relation to this the Dew form the contract with Selfridge & Co with same condition,
however, the condition was breached by the Selfridge & Co but cannot be sued by the Dunlop as it was
not party to contract. Similar principle is reaffirmed in the case of (Scruton’s Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd
(1962) and (Beswick v Beswick) [1969]. However, the law is creating injustice in number of cases
therefore provide justice to the parties the courts established the law related to the third party on the basis
of case to case facts: Firstly, the party to the contract can also get the benefit in place of the third party
from the promisor. However, issues also come in place as the party was also unable to enforce the benefit
of third party or may be unwilling, primarily to get the damages the party has to must suffer the lost
which he did know as the contract does not recognize the interest of x party to get the performance of the
contract for third party (Pinetown v Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd). Due to these reasons the courts
create certain circumstances where damages can be quantified to the third party where the main purpose
of forming the contract is to benefit the third party. In the case of multiple booking the party to the
contract can get the benefit of third party on his behalf as seen in (Jackson v Horizon Halliday’s) where
the contract of booking was formed for holidays for himself and his family, however, the breach occur he
can claim the damages for himself and behalf of his family. This approach was limited in the case of
(Woodar v Wimpey construction). Secondly, the contracts made with carriers to deliver the goods of
buyer, it can be understood by the case of (Albazero) where the Albazero come into the two contract one
with carrier after that enter into the second contract with buyer to sell of goods. As no contract of carrier
will be formed with buyer. Accordingly, the carrier has to deliver the goods, he had no concerned in
relation that if good got damaged in any way, however, in this situation the seller can get the
compensation on behalf of the buyer. Thirdly, the contract was formed that the subject matter will be
acquired by the third party, as the main purpose of the execution of the contract is to provide the subject
matter of the third party, according to the case of (linden Gardens Trust v Lenesta Sludge). Lastly, an
order for the promisor to perform, as the courts some time grant the specific performance or rejection to
