Facts: A man (x) transferred his business to his nephew under the condition that his nephew would pay him (x) a certain amount of money, then when he died he would pay that that money to his wife (3rd party). The man died and the nephew refused to pay the widow, so she sued.

Held: The widow could not sue as a beneficiary as she was not a party to the contract

Facts: The parties agreed that party B would pay party A money via party A's agent. Party A and his agent agreed that he (party A) should receive commission – but party B did not agree to this. Party A and party B then decided the payment should be made directly to party A (so the agent could not get commission) – the agent subsequently sued party A for this.

Held: The court said the purpose of the parties was not to benefit the agent so held that S1(1)(b) Contracts (Rights of 3rd parties) Act 1999 will not apply i.e. this section says that if the contract appears to be for the benefit of a third party then that third party can enforce the contract

Facts: A man and his family contracted for a holiday which turned out to be awful so sued for his own family’s distress. The man entered the contract for his family (who also suffered as a third party)

Held: Denning, going against Privity of contract, said the man could claim compensation for himself AND his family

Facts: Parties agreed they would pay commission to a third party (the brokers)

Held: The court held that: 1) the contract was for the benefit of the 3rd party brokers, and 2) there was nothing in the contract which said the third parties would not be able to enforce the contract

Facts: There was a couple getting married. The father of the bride and father of the groom agreed to give the couple some money. The father of the bride died before paying. The father of the groom also died before paying, so he could not sue the father of the bride. The groom therefore made a claim on his father's benefit.

Held: The claim failed: the groom was not a party to the agreement and the consideration did not move from him (i.e. privity of contract). Therefore he was not entitled to enforce the contract. So, as seen in this case, even if the 3rd party has an interest in the contract, he/she will NOT be able to enforce it

Facts: Jackson v Horizon Holidays [1975] was doubted in this case. Wimpey was to pay part of the money for some land to Woodar and a little extra to a third party, Tansworld. Woodar claimed, after the contract was terminated, the money owed to them plus the money owed to the third party.

Held: It was said, obiter, that Woodar could not get the money owed to the 3rd party (so the claimants' desire to follow Jackson was rejected)