Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B & S 393. The marriage of William Tweddle to Mary Guy was the occasion of a contract between William''s father and Mary''s father, by which each promised to pay William a sum of money. Mary''s father died before payment, and his estate refused to pay. William sued. The court held the action could not be brought: William was not a party to the contract and consideration had not moved from him.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847. Dunlop sold tyres to Dew & Co on a price-maintenance term; Dew sold to Selfridge subject to the same term; Selfridge sold below the price; Dunlop sued. The House of Lords applied the privity rule: Dunlop and Selfridge had no contract, and Dunlop was not entitled to enforce Dew''s contract with Selfridge. Lord Haldane LC at 853 articulated the orthodox formulation: ''only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it''.
Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58. A coal-merchant, in selling his business to his nephew, had stipulated that the nephew should pay an annuity to his widow after his death. The nephew refused to pay. The widow, in her capacity as administratrix of her husband''s estate, sued for specific performance. The House of Lords granted specific performance. The case is significant for two reasons: (i) it shows the limits of the privity rule (the widow could not sue in her own right); (ii) it shows the available alternative — the personal representative of the contracting party can enforce the contract for the benefit of the third party. The case is also a famous illustration of judicial frustration with the privity rule (Lord Reid at 72: ''it would be deplorable if the law allowed [the nephew] to obtain his uncle''s business by paying only the price he had agreed and never having to pay the agreed annuity'').
Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468. The claimant booked a family holiday for himself, his wife, and his children; the holiday was disastrous. He sued and was awarded damages reflecting his own and his family''s disappointment. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the claimant was the only party to the contract but allowed damages reflecting the third-party loss on a public-policy basis. The reasoning has been criticised but the decision has been preserved as a narrow exception to the no-third-party-loss rule.
St Martin''s Property Corp Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85. A property developer transferred its interest in a property to a subsidiary before a building contract with the defendant builders had been completed; the builders breached the contract; the original developer sued. The House of Lords held that the original developer could recover damages reflecting the loss to the subsidiary, on the Dunlop v Lambert exception (recovery for loss to a third party where the original contracting party had a substantial interest in the third party receiving the benefit). The case extends the Dunlop v Lambert exception to commercial property transactions.
New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v AM Satterthwaite & Co Ltd (The Eurymedon) [1975] AC 154. Stevedores discharged cargo in New Zealand; the bill of lading contained a Himalaya clause extending the carrier''s exclusion of liability to the stevedores. The cargo was damaged. The Privy Council held that the stevedores could rely on the Himalaya clause: the carrier had contracted as agent for the stevedores. The case extends agency-doctrine reasoning to support third-party enforcement of contractual exclusion clauses; the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 has now codified this position more directly through s 6.
Adler v Dickson (The Himalaya) [1955] 1 QB 158. A passenger on a ship sued the master and bosun in tort for negligence; the contract of carriage contained an exclusion clause but only protected the carrier, not the master and crew. The Court of Appeal held that the exclusion clause did not protect the master and crew. The case prompted the development of the Himalaya clause to extend exclusion clauses to servants and agents.