Tweddle v Atkinson

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, identified as the son of a deceased individual, had married the daughter of another deceased individual. Prior to the marriage, both the Plaintiff's father and his wife's father had made verbal promises to provide marriage portions to the Plaintiff and his wife respectively, which had not been fulfilled at the time of a subsequent written agreement. This agreement, made between the two fathers, stipulated specific sums to be paid to the Plaintiff by certain dates and granted the Plaintiff the right to sue for those sums. The Plaintiff and his wife later ratified this agreement. The Plaintiff claims that the payment due from one of the fathers or his executor has not been made despite the expiry of the payment date, leading to the present suit.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a person who is a stranger to the consideration of a contract but for whose benefit the contract was made can maintain an action for breach of that contract.
2. Whether the natural relationship between parents and children creates an exception to the rule that only parties who provide consideration may sue on a contract.
3. Whether the old case law supporting actions by children based on contracts made by their parents remains valid in light of modern principles governing actions of assumpsit.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff is a stranger to the agreement and the consideration stated in the declaration and therefore cannot sue upon the contract.
• The settled rule is that an action for breach of contract must be brought by the person from whom the consideration moved, citing Price v. Easton.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• There is an exception to the general rule in contracts made by parents for the purpose of providing for their children.
• Older cases such as Dutton and Wife v. Poole, Bourne v. Mason, Sprat v. Agar, and Thomas v. - support that children may maintain actions on contracts made by their parents for their benefit.
• The natural relationship between father and son creates an agency relationship, making the father an agent for the son, allowing the son to sue on the contract.
• The purpose of the contract is to provide for the children, and allowing the children to sue accomplishes this objective more effectively than allowing only the parents to sue.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged that historically some decisions allowed persons not providing consideration but closely related to the promisee to maintain an action on contracts made for their benefit. The strongest authority was Bourne v. Mason, where a daughter was allowed to sue on a promise made to her father. However, the Court emphasized that modern legal principles governing actions of assumpsit have established that only parties from whom the consideration moves may maintain such actions. The Court noted that the old cases were decided when assumpsit was treated more like a tort, and the doctrine of natural love and affection as sufficient consideration was not settled. Modern cases have overruled these older decisions, and the Court was prepared to reject the Plaintiff's claim as an exception to the established rule. The Court also highlighted that allowing the Plaintiff to sue without being a party to the consideration would create an illogical scenario where he could sue for his benefit without being liable under the contract. Additionally, statutory interpretations related to voluntary gifts supported the view that natural love and affection do not constitute sufficient consideration for an assumpsit action.

Holding and Implications

The Court rendered judgment in favour of the Defendant, holding that the Plaintiff, being a stranger to the consideration of the contract, cannot maintain an action upon it despite the contract being made for his benefit.

Judgment for the Defendant.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The Court did not establish any new precedent but reaffirmed the modern principle that only parties who provide consideration may sue on a contract, rejecting older exceptions based on familial relationships and natural affection.