- Created by: Tiffany
- Created on: 07-11-11 17:55
Dunlop v Selfridge→ In a contract dated 12th October 1911 Drew & Co, who were wholesalers, agreed to buy tyres from manufactures. They did so on an express undertaking in the contract that they would not sell the tyres below certain prices fixed by the manufactures. Drew & Co also undertook to obtain the same price fixing agreements from clients to whom they sold on. Dew then sold the tyres on to Selfridge on these terms. However, Selfridge broke the agreement and sold the tyres at discount prices. Dunlop sued Selfridge, the third party, and sought an injunction. It failed for lack privity. (The case would of course now be subject to the Competition Act 1998 or EU law.)
Tweddle v Atkinson→ Fathers of a young couple who intended to marry agreed bin writing that each would settle a sum of money on the couple. The young woman’s father died before giving over the money and the young man then sued the executors to the estate when they refused to hand over the money. Even though he was named he was named in the agreement he failed because he had given no consideration for the agreement he failed because he had given no consideration for the agreement himself.
Gregory & Parker v Williams
Parker owed money to both Gregory and Williams. Since he could see no way of organising settlement of his of his debts himself, he assigned all of his property to Williams would then pay off debt to Gregory. Williams failed to pay over the money to Gregory. Gregory, of course, was not a party to the agreement between Parker and Williams and as a result was unable to sue on it in contract law. However, the court was nevertheless prepared to accept Gregory’s argument that a trust of the money, a beneficial interest was created in Gregory’s favour, which was then enforceable against Williams. There was never any intention that Williams should keep all of the money,…