Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B&S 393

(Significance : A stranger to the contract cannot enforce the promise, even if he provides consideration.) Facts : Defendant promised plaintiffs father that he will pay a sum of money to the plaintiff for marrying the defendants daughter. Held : The promise could not be enforced because although the plaintiff provided consideration, he was not a party to the contract. Inference : Consideration provided by a 3rd party is not valid, because he is not a party to the contract. Unless he is a Joint Promisee.) This decision was later approved by the House of Lords in the following case :

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge (1915) AC 847 (House of Lords)

(Significance : Support that contract cannot be enforced without privity of contract.) Facts : Plaintiffs sold goods to X Co. on the condition that X Co. was not to resell them below a certain price. Plaintiffs extracted an undertaking from X Co. that when it sold the goods to its customers, it should inform the customer not to sell below the stated price otherwise X Co. could sue for damages. X Co. sold goods to Defendants who resold goods below price floor. Plaintiffs attempted to sue Defendants based on the Defendants promise to X Co. Defendants claimed that Plaintiffs were not privity to the contract. Plaintiffs replied that X Co. was an agent of the Plaintiffs. Held : The plaintiffs were still not a party to the contract and had not furnished consideration for Defendants promise. The doctrine is entrenched in Malaysia as evidenced by the following case :