Court: Court of Queen’s Bench
Judgment Date: 7 June 1861
Where Reported: 121 E.R. 762; (1861) 1 B. & S. 393; [1861] 6 WLUK 44
Legal Issues in Tweddle v Atkinson
The legal issue in Tweddle v Atkinson revolved around the entitlement of a third party, specifically the son-in-law, to sue for the breach of a contract made between two fathers for the benefit of their children.
The central question in Tweddle v Atkinson was whether the son-in-law, William Tweddle, had the legal standing to maintain an action for the non-payment of the sums promised to him by the fathers of the contracting parties.
Tweddle v Atkinson raised the fundamental legal issue of whether a third party, who was not a direct party to the consideration of the contract, could enforce the terms of the agreement and claim damages for its breach.
Material Facts in Tweddle v Atkinson
The case involved a verbal promise made by William Guy, the father of Tweddle’s wife, to give a marriage portion to his daughter, and a similar promise made by John Tweddle, the father of William Tweddle, to provide a marriage portion to his son.
Subsequently, William Guy and John Tweddle entered into a written agreement, mutually agreeing to pay specific sums to William Tweddle.
The agreement also granted William Tweddle the power to sue the parties in any court of law or equity for the promised sums. However, after the specified date, the promised sums were not paid, leading to the legal dispute.
Judgment in Tweddle v Atkinson
The court held that the action brought by William Tweddle was not maintainable, despite the near relationship of the plaintiff to the party from whom the consideration moved.
The judgment emphasised that the consideration must move from the party entitled to sue upon the contract.
The court also highlighted that natural love and affection were not a sufficient consideration for maintaining an action of assumpsit, and that the consideration must move from the party entitled to sue upon the contract.
The Reason for the Decision in Tweddle v Atkinson
The court’s decision was grounded in the principle that the consideration must move from the party entitled to sue upon the contract.
The judgment emphasised that the action was not maintainable, despite the near relationship of the plaintiff to the party from whom the consideration moved – see Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge (1915).
The court also underscored that natural love and affection were not a sufficient consideration for maintaining an action of assumpsit, and that the consideration must move from the party entitled to sue upon the contract.
The court’s reasoning was influenced by the modern cases, which had overruled the old decisions and established that the consideration must move from the party entitled to sue upon the contract.
The judgment highlighted the need for mutuality in the consideration and the entitlement to sue upon the contract, underscoring the legal principle that a third party cannot take advantage of a contract, although made for his benefit.
Legal Principles in Tweddle v Atkinson
The case of Tweddle v Atkinson established the legal principle that a third party, who is not a direct party to the consideration of a contract, cannot maintain an action for the breach of the contract, even if the contract was made for his benefit.
The decision emphasised the requirement for the consideration to move from the party entitled to sue upon the contract, highlighting the principle of mutuality in the consideration and the entitlement to sue upon the contract.
This principle set a precedent for the recognition that a third party cannot take advantage of a contract made for his benefit, and that the consideration must move from the party entitled to sue upon the contract.
