Price v Easton (1833) 4 B&Ad 433
Contract law – Consideration – Privity of contract
A declaration between the parties stated that X owed the plaintiff £3. As such, X agreed to complete work for the defendant in exchange for payment, which would clear the debt that he owed to the plaintiff. The defendant agreed he would pay the plaintiff on X’s behalf once the work was finished. X completed the work for the defendant but the defendant did not pay the plaintiff, or X, as had been promised. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the money that X owed him, which would have been paid by way of the defendant’s payment.
The court was required to establish whether the plaintiff had provided any consideration for the agreement between the defendant and X for the work that was carried out. If this could be established, the plaintiff would be able to sue the defendant for the money that would have been paid to the plaintiff as a result of X’s work to clear the debt that was owed from their separate agreement.
It was found that X performed his part of the agreement with the defendant but the plaintiff was a stranger to the contract between the parties and therefore could not sue for the sum owed by the defendant. This was despite the fact that the money owed would have been paid to the plaintiff to clear the previous debt. The court found this on the basis that the plaintiff had not provided any consideration for the promise between the parties. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed by the court.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related ServicesView all
Related ContentJurisdictions / Tags
Content relating to: "UK Law"
UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.
Section 3 of Human Rights Act
The presupposition when reading the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) s.3 is that the courts have been given the remit to interpret statutory ......
Morgan Crucible v Hill Samuel
The plaintiffs were bidding to take over a third party company, which was being advised by the defendants. During the bidding process, the defendants made a number of negligent misrepresentations to the third party company, which resulted the plaintiffs suffering a loss....