Pigott v Thompson (1802) 3 Bos & Pul 98
Contract law – Privity of contract
Facts
The plaintiff was a treasurer to the commissioners of the tolls and as such, earned an annual salary and was employed by way of an act of Parliament. The defendant agreed to pay rent on tolls which he had hired from the commissioners and for three years, the defendant paid the rent that was owed for this to the plaintiff, as had been agreed. However, the defendant fell into arrears and the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for the outstanding balance. The court in the initial trial found that the plaintiff could bring an action and claim for the money owed. The defendant appealed this decision.
Issue
The court was required to establish whether the plaintiff could claim for the payment that was outstanding for the rental of the tolls on the basis that they were an employee of the commissioner and therefore may not have been a specific party to the contract. If the plaintiff could not be seen as a party to the contract, the claim would be dismissed.
Decision/Outcome
The court found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the claim brought by the plaintiff for the money that is outstanding. It did so on the basis that the intention of the agreement between the commissioner and defendant was that in consideration for renting the land, the defendant would pay money to any person who had been assigned by the commissioner. However, the court found that a debt was not assignable and that the original contract did not include the plaintiff treasurer. On this basis, the plaintiff could not claim for the sum of money that was owed.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article summarises the 1802 case of Pigott v Thompson (1802) 3 Bos & Pul 98, which is a historical authority on privity of contract. The core common law principle illustrated by this case — that a stranger to a contract generally cannot sue upon it — remains part of English legal history and is still cited in academic discussions of privity.
However, readers should be aware that the privity of contract doctrine has been significantly modified by statute. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 now allows a third party to enforce a contractual term in certain circumstances: where the contract expressly provides for this, or where the term purports to confer a benefit on the third party and the parties did not intend the term to be unenforceable by that third party. This Act substantially alters the practical landscape that Pigott v Thompson historically illustrates, and students should consider the 1999 Act alongside older authorities of this kind. The case retains value as an illustration of the pre-1999 common law position and the strictness with which privity was historically applied.
