## Facts

- An agreement was made between John Tweddle (father of the groom) and William Guy (father of the bride) regarding their children's marriage.
- Both fathers agreed to pay specified sums of money to the groom.
- The agreement stated that the groom could sue either party for non-payment.
- William Guy died before making his promised payment.
- The groom, John Tweddle’s son, sued William Guy’s estate (the executor was Atkinson) to recover the promised sum.

## Issues

1. Whether the groom, not a party to the original agreement between the fathers, could enforce the contract.
2. Whether the groom had provided consideration sufficient to entitle him to enforce the promise.

## Decision

- The court held that only a party to a contract who has provided consideration can enforce its terms.
- The groom could not enforce the agreement as he was not a party to the contract and had not furnished consideration.
- The intention to benefit the groom did not grant him the right to sue on the contract.

## Legal Principles

- Reaffirmed the doctrine of privity of contract: third parties cannot enforce contractual terms.
- Emphasized the requirement that consideration must move from the promisee; only those providing consideration can enforce a promise.
- Highlighted the separation between consideration and privity: even if a party is named in or benefits from a contract, the absence of consideration is fatal to enforceability.
- Demonstrated the strict formalism of nineteenth-century contract law, influencing subsequent developments and statutory reform.

## Conclusion

Tweddle v Atkinson established the foundational rule that only those who are parties to a contract and who have provided consideration may enforce its terms. The decision reinforced the privity of contract doctrine in English law and clarified the interrelation of privity and consideration, shaping both case law and later legislative modifications such as the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, while remaining relevant in situations outside its statutory exceptions.


Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B & S 393