## Facts

- The case involved a dispute over the enforceability of incomplete covenants and the rights of third parties within contractual agreements relating to property.
- The court examined whether a covenant lacking essential terms or formalities could be enforced.
- The matter was heard in the Chancery Court, which primarily addressed equitable remedies and property rights.
- The judgment evaluated the application of legal and equitable principles to covenants in property law, including privity of contract and third-party rights.

## Issues

1. Whether incomplete covenants, those lacking essential terms or formalities, may be enforced at law or in equity.
2. Whether and under what circumstances a third party may have the standing to enforce the terms of a covenant.
3. What requirements—such as clarity of intention and formalities—must be present for covenants to be enforceable.

## Decision

- The court held that incomplete covenants, due to absence of essential terms, could not be enforced at law.
- It determined that equitable remedies might be available where there was a clear intention to create a binding obligation and enforcement would not result in injustice.
- The court reaffirmed the doctrine of privity of contract, generally denying standing to third parties to enforce contractual obligations.
- Exceptions to privity were acknowledged, particularly in property law where the covenant benefits the third party or is intended to run with the land, but such exceptions require clear evidence of intention.

## Legal Principles

- An enforceable covenant requires clear, unambiguous terms and compliance with formalities.
- Privity of contract generally limits enforcement of contractual obligations to parties to the contract, restricting rights of third parties.
- Incomplete covenants are not enforceable at law but may, in limited cases, be enforced in equity if fairness and clear intention are demonstrated.
- Consideration is fundamental for formation at law, but equity may permit enforcement of property covenants even absent consideration.
- Third-party enforcement is only possible under defined exceptions, such as when a covenant runs with the land and benefits the third party, with the necessary intention established.

## Conclusion

Davenport v Bishopp clarifies that incomplete covenants lacking essential terms are unenforceable at law, while equity may intervene where intention and fairness support enforcement. The judgment upholds privity of contract but recognizes limited exceptions for third-party rights in property contexts, shaping the framework for covenant disputes in English property law.


Davenport v Bishopp (1843) 2 Y & C CC 451