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

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal