Carnegie v Waugh (1823) 1 LJ KB 89
Contract law – Landlord and tenant – Privity of contract
Facts
The Scottish court had appointed two people, A and B, as the carers of C who was an infant. The guardians subsequently carried out an agreement on behalf of C, with another for the lease of a salmon fishery in Scotland. It was agreed between the parties that the annual rent would be paid to C. There was a dispute related to the agreement between the parties and an action was brought to the court which questioned the nature of the agreement.
Issue
It was important for the court to consider whether C could sue on the lease arrangement that had been agreed by his guardians and by the lessee for the salmon fishery. It was an important consideration that C, as a child, was not a party to the original agreement and was not of full age at the time the action was brought and this created a difficult point of law for the court to consider.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that C could sue on the original agreement between the parties, despite the fact that he was not a party to that agreement. The court found that as C was attempting to rely upon an agreement that contained his own name, this was enough to be able to consider him as a party to the contract. Importantly, the court held that the fact that C was not of full age when the action was brought to the court, does still not restrict C from being a party to the agreement.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises the decision in Carnegie v Waugh (1823) 1 LJ KB 89 as a historical authority. The case is of historical interest primarily in the context of privity of contract and the capacity of minors to benefit from contractual arrangements made on their behalf.
Readers should be aware that the law in this area has developed considerably since 1823. The doctrine of privity of contract in English law was substantially examined in Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) and firmly established in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847. The position of third parties seeking to enforce contracts was later reformed by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, which now provides the primary statutory mechanism by which a third party may in certain circumstances enforce a contractual term made for their benefit, without needing to rely on older common law exceptions such as that illustrated in Carnegie v Waugh. The rules on minors’ contracts are now largely governed by the Minors’ Contracts Act 1987. Students should treat this case as a historical data point rather than a statement of current law, and should refer to the 1999 Act and subsequent case law for the modern position on third-party rights.
