Tweddle v Atkinson

• William Tweddle (plaintiff) married the daughter of William Guy
• Before the marriage, the two fathers (John Tweddle and William Guy) entered an agreement: each would pay a sum of money to the young couple
• The agreement expressly stated that William Tweddle (the groom) "shall have full power to sue" for the promised sums
• William Guy died without paying his share
• The groom sued Guy's executor (Atkinson) to recover the promised amount

1. Whether a person for whose benefit a contract is made can sue upon it, despite being a stranger to the consideration?

• The court unanimously held that William Tweddle could not recover
• Consideration must move from the promisee; the groom had provided no consideration for Guy's promise
• A stranger to the consideration cannot enforce the contract, even if named as beneficiary
• The express clause giving the groom "power to sue" was insufficient; parties cannot create a right of action for a third party by contract alone
• No privity of contract existed between the groom and the father-in-law

Under English common law, only a person who has furnished consideration can enforce a contract. A stranger to the consideration, even one expressly named as beneficiary with an express right to sue, cannot maintain an action upon the contract. The doctrine requires both privity of contract and movement of consideration from the plaintiff.