Question Description
The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of breach.The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of 16th century.But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up an action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action".The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case of Levettv Hawes.In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the use shall be changes and transferred to the son, as if it were a covenant with himself; and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son."However later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.Q. In England, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. With reference to the passage decide the validity of the father's claim.a)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money since he was the party to the contract.b)Invalid, only the son is entitled to the money since he was the beneficiary of the contract.c)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money as the beneficiary hasn't claimed any of it.d)Invalid, as the idea of dowry runs counter to the public policy.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of breach.The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of 16th century.But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up an action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action".The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case of Levettv Hawes.In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the use shall be changes and transferred to the son, as if it were a covenant with himself; and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son."However later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.Q. In England, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. With reference to the passage decide the validity of the father's claim.a)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money since he was the party to the contract.b)Invalid, only the son is entitled to the money since he was the beneficiary of the contract.c)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money as the beneficiary hasn't claimed any of it.d)Invalid, as the idea of dowry runs counter to the public policy.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of breach.The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of 16th century.But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up an action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action".The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case of Levettv Hawes.In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the use shall be changes and transferred to the son, as if it were a covenant with himself; and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son."However later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.Q. In England, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. With reference to the passage decide the validity of the father's claim.a)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money since he was the party to the contract.b)Invalid, only the son is entitled to the money since he was the beneficiary of the contract.c)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money as the beneficiary hasn't claimed any of it.d)Invalid, as the idea of dowry runs counter to the public policy.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of breach.The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of 16th century.But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up an action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action".The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case of Levettv Hawes.In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the use shall be changes and transferred to the son, as if it were a covenant with himself; and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son."However later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.Q. In England, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. With reference to the passage decide the validity of the father's claim.a)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money since he was the party to the contract.b)Invalid, only the son is entitled to the money since he was the beneficiary of the contract.c)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money as the beneficiary hasn't claimed any of it.d)Invalid, as the idea of dowry runs counter to the public policy.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of breach.The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of 16th century.But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up an action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action".The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case of Levettv Hawes.In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the use shall be changes and transferred to the son, as if it were a covenant with himself; and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son."However later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.Q. In England, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. With reference to the passage decide the validity of the father's claim.a)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money since he was the party to the contract.b)Invalid, only the son is entitled to the money since he was the beneficiary of the contract.c)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money as the beneficiary hasn't claimed any of it.d)Invalid, as the idea of dowry runs counter to the public policy.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of breach.The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of 16th century.But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up an action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action".The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case of Levettv Hawes.In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the use shall be changes and transferred to the son, as if it were a covenant with himself; and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son."However later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.Q. In England, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. With reference to the passage decide the validity of the father's claim.a)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money since he was the party to the contract.b)Invalid, only the son is entitled to the money since he was the beneficiary of the contract.c)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money as the beneficiary hasn't claimed any of it.d)Invalid, as the idea of dowry runs counter to the public policy.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of breach.The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of 16th century.But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up an action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action".The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case of Levettv Hawes.In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the use shall be changes and transferred to the son, as if it were a covenant with himself; and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son."However later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.Q. In England, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. With reference to the passage decide the validity of the father's claim.a)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money since he was the party to the contract.b)Invalid, only the son is entitled to the money since he was the beneficiary of the contract.c)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money as the beneficiary hasn't claimed any of it.d)Invalid, as the idea of dowry runs counter to the public policy.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of breach.The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of 16th century.But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up an action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action".The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case of Levettv Hawes.In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the use shall be changes and transferred to the son, as if it were a covenant with himself; and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son."However later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.Q. In England, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. With reference to the passage decide the validity of the father's claim.a)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money since he was the party to the contract.b)Invalid, only the son is entitled to the money since he was the beneficiary of the contract.c)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money as the beneficiary hasn't claimed any of it.d)Invalid, as the idea of dowry runs counter to the public policy.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of breach.The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of 16th century.But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up an action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action".The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case of Levettv Hawes.In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the use shall be changes and transferred to the son, as if it were a covenant with himself; and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son."However later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.Q. In England, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. With reference to the passage decide the validity of the father's claim.a)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money since he was the party to the contract.b)Invalid, only the son is entitled to the money since he was the beneficiary of the contract.c)Valid, the father would be entitled to the money as the beneficiary hasn't claimed any of it.d)Invalid, as the idea of dowry runs counter to the public policy.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.