ICLR + privity

• only those who are parties to a contract can generally sue
• Non-exceptions:

  Donoghue & Stevenson- had to go down negligence route, couldn’t sue through contract law she didn’t have contract with the business/ coffee shop her friend only had contract with coffee shop Donoghue didn’t buy the drink unable to sue due to not having privity of contract. Anyone outside of the contract cannot claim.
• non- exceptions:

  Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co V Selfridge- Dunlop sold tyres to dew for a certain amount and said anyone else they sell them too must be sold for a fixed amount , trying to maintain value of their product, had contract with Selfridges they promised, Selfridges sold them for lower price Dunlop tried to sue but they didn’t have relationship with them.
• Non- exceptions:

  Tweddle V Atkinson- son wasn’t part of contract despite benefit he didn’t make contract, contract was between Mr Tweddle (his father) and Mr Guy (who had died and still owed him money).
• common law exceptions:

  ·      Agency- agent authorised to make a contract on behalf of another person etc. see pg. 28
• common law exceptions:

  ·      Collateral contracts- law finds an additional contract- separate contract that runs alongside the main contract etc. pg. 28 Shanklin Pier V Detel Products (1951)
• common law exceptions:

  Only in buying and selling land- restricted covenants on the and- restrictions and terms that come with buying land and they run with the land.(can be used in evaluation question)
• common law exceptions:

  ·      Trust exists to benefit a third party e.g., a trust to pay a schools child fees.
• common law exceptions:

  ·      Third party motor insurance policy
• common law exceptions:

  ·      Holiday cases- Jackson V Horizon Holidays can also be reversed onto the family if children trash hotel room parents can be sued despite child not having contract with hotel.
• Social and domestic relationships family and friends- starting point is there is no ICLR.- Rebuttable presumption^ evidence can be presented against this
• Balfour V Balfour (1919)- husband promised to give allowance while he was abroad, they split he didn’t pay no ICLR as domestic relationship. Evaluate: rights to women (–) but otherwise every family could make legal contract (+).

  Jones V Padavatton (1969)- mothers promise, purely domestic (mother to child).
• Evidence that there can be ICLR due to time of agreement/ formality (fact it is written down is good evidence of u wanting it to be a contract):

  Merritt V Merritt (1970)- husband promised to give house if she payed remainder of mortgage and then he didn’t, difference is that when agreement was made they were separate, more evidence that they wanted to rely on this promise due to separation and trying to sort their lives out. 
• Darke V Strout- wrote in letter everything he was going to pay, he didn’t, she sued, despite being domestic agreement there was timing after they had split, formal agreement was written down with clear terms that were serious e.g., nursery fees and car insurance (good evidence of an IC legal relations).
• Julian V Furby- parent to child relationship no ICLR decorating daughters house a loving father action can’t expect daughter and son in law to pay but can expect them to contribute to the materials, court split it element of no ICLR loving father to daughter but element of ICLR with promise to pay for materials is enforceable.
• Always say with domestic that there is none except Darke and Strout exceptions:

  When was agreement made, how serious, how certain are the terms, any reliance on the terms, how formal was it (written).
• Parker V Clark- Relied on promise, sold their own house (evidence they did intent on it being bound), despite social agreement/ relationship.
• Simpkins and Pays- lottery ticket, lodger contributed payed for his ticket.
• Business and commercial agreements- IS ICLR unless we can prove otherwise- more difficult to prove.

  McGowan V Radio Buxton- car, toy, no hint it was toy, Buxton lost
• Can rebut through wording (gentleman’s agreement)- Jones V Vernon Pools- ‘this agreement is binding in honour only’/ gentleman’s agreement., ‘mere puff’- quote from case Weeks V Tybald, ‘subject to contract’- phrasing (needs to be phrased in problem question) not yet in a contract what is being said currently don’t intent to be binding still negotiating. 
• Weeks V Tybald (1605)-£100 to anyone who would marry his daughter, wasn’t an ICLR was merely to entice suitors, no intention to be a commercial relationship.
• Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball- business relationship between you and customers (they tried to argue it was ‘mere puff’ it was clear they gained a huge commercial benefit from people buying their product intending to have a legal relation with those people.
• Only those who are parties to a contract can generally sue. 
• Donoghue & Stevenson had to go down the negligence route as they couldn't sue through contract law as Donoghue didn't have a contract with the business/ coffee shop, while her friend only had a contract with the coffee shop.
• Donoghue was unable to sue due to not having privity of contract.
• Common Law is not in statute law and is developed on a case-by-case basis.
• In the case of Donoghue & Stevenson, the court ruled that a person cannot sue for damages unless they have a contract with the party being sued.
• Agency is a legal concept where an agent is authorised to make a contract on behalf of another person.
• Collateral contracts are law finds an additional contract, a separate contract that runs alongside the main contract.
• Restricted covenants are terms and restrictions that come with buying land and they run with the land.
• A trust exists to benefit a third party, for example, a trust to pay a school's child fees.
• Third party motor insurance policy is a policy taken out by a person other than the policyholder.
• Holiday cases, such as Jackson V Horizon Holidays, can be reversed onto the family if children trash hotel room, parents can be sued despite child not having contract with hotel.