- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hello sir. According to the privity of the contract, only the parties to a contract, acquire rights and obligations under it and can sue and sued on it. There was a case about Dunlop vs Selfridge (1915). In this case Dunlop had an agreement with their dealers for not to sell tires below RRR and Dunlop required their dealers to reach a same agreement with their retailers. According to the case, Dunlop’s dealer had an agreement with selfridge (Reatiler) which eventually makes Dunlop a third party due to that clause I mentioned before. After some time selfridge sold some tires below RRR, and once Dunlop knew this, they sued selfridge to get back the compensation of 5 pound per tire. The court ordered Dunlop cannot claim for the damages in this circumstance as they don’t have an agreement with Selfridge.
In some instances, third party can sue in another party. Beswick vs Beswick (1968) is an example of it. In this case,PB’s nephew agreed to pay PB’s wife after the PB died for the rest of her life. This was agreed between PB and his wife along with the principal agreement. Due to this clause Court said PB’s wife can claim that payment from PB’s nephew which he had only paid once.
In both the cases, there had been a third party to the contract. Since PB’s wife can demand payments from PB’s nephew, why can’t Dunlop failed to claim damages from Selfridge. Selfridge and thier dealers agreement includes dealers to have an agreement not to sell tires below RRR. Can you please explain the difference between these two cases?
In the Beswick case, Mrs Beswick brought the case not in her own name nor in her capacity as an aggrieved third party
She brought the case in her capacity as the legal representative of her deceased husband to enforce the contract that her husband had made with the nephew
Interestingly now it is the case that manufacturers are not able to demand that their customers stick to a recommended retail price.
There have been a number of cases about this very point and in each case (none of the names of which can I remember!) the Court has directed that, where a customer buys goods from a manufacturer, the customer may sell those goods at any price that they wish to see
Football clubs are not unusually involved in this type of argument and I seem to recollect one case involving Leeds United
OK?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.