the other parties to a related contract. As will be seen below, some of these relationships, although not all, will be covered by the provisions of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and may, more easily be regarded as giving rise to enforceable contractual rights in favour of a third party. In Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd, Dew & Co, a firm of motor factors agreed to distribute Dunlop tyres. Part of the agreement was that Dew would adhere to a price maintenance structure set out by Dunlop and that Dew would require any subsequent purchaser from them of Dunlop tyres also to adhere to that price maintenance structure. Dew sold Dunlop tyres to Selfridge, who then proposed to sell those tyres at a price lower than had been stipulated by Dunlop. The contract between Dew and Selfridge provided that Selfridge would adhere to Dunlop’s minimum prices and the question arose whether Dunlop could enforce the relevant term in their favour, despite the fact that they were not parties to the contract which contained the relevant term. The House of Lords held that as no consideration moved from Dunlop to Selfridge, the contract was unenforceable by Dunlop against Selfridge: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, HL, p 853

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-294

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

the other parties to a related contract. As will be seen below, some of these relationships, although not all, will be covered by the provisions of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and may, more easily be regarded as giving rise to enforceable contractual rights in favour of a third party. In Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd, Dew & Co, a firm of motor factors agreed to distribute Dunlop tyres. Part of the agreement was that Dew would adhere to a price maintenance structure set out by Dunlop and that Dew would require any subsequent purchaser from them of Dunlop tyres also to adhere to that price maintenance structure. Dew sold Dunlop tyres to Selfridge, who then proposed to sell those tyres at a price lower than had been stipulated by Dunlop. The contract between Dew and Selfridge provided that Selfridge would adhere to Dunlop’s minimum prices and the question arose whether Dunlop could enforce the relevant term in their favour, despite the fact that they were not parties to the contract which contained the relevant term. The House of Lords held that as no consideration moved from Dunlop to Selfridge, the contract was unenforceable by Dunlop against Selfridge: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, HL, p 853

ABSTRACT

Viscount Haldane: My Lords, in the law of England, certain principles are fundamental. One is that only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it. Our law knows nothing of a jus quaesitum tertio arising by way of contract. Such a right may be conferred by way of property, as, for example, under a trust, but it cannot be conferred on a stranger to a contract as a right to enforce the contract in personam. A second principle is that if a person with whom a contract not under seal has been made is to be able to enforce it consideration must have been given by him to the promisor or to some other person at the promisor’s request. These two principles are not recognised in the same fashion by the jurisprudence of certain continental countries or of Scotland, but here they are well established. A third proposition is that a principal not named in the contract may sue upon it if the promisee really contracted as his agent. But, again, in order to entitle him so to sue, he must have given consideration either personally or through the promisee, acting as his agent in giving it.