Tweeddale v. Tweeddale

View this case and other resources at:

Brief Fact Summary.

Daniel Tweeddale (Defendant) made an agreement with his mother. Their agreement provided that if Defendant sold the land, he would give his mother$1,350.00, his sister $50.00 and his brother (Plaintiff), $100.00.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A third party beneficiary’s rights in a contract do not vest until the beneficiary becomes aware of them.

Facts.

Defendant and his mother made an agreement where:
Defendant and mother agreed that if Defendant ever sold the land, he would give mother $1,350.00, his sister, $50.00 and the Plaintiff, $100.00.
Defendant did sell the land. He worked out a deal with his mother but did not pay his brother or sister any money. Neither his sister nor Plaintiff knew about the contract between Defendant and his mother before Defendant sold the land.

Issue.

Should Plaintiff receive the $100.00?

Held.

No.
For a third party to benefit under a contract, the third party must be privy to the contract. In this case, Plaintiff never knew about the contract until it was rescinded. Thus, he never became privy to the contract or changed his position so that he would suffer if the contract were rescinded.

Discussion.

A third party beneficiary does not have any rights under a contract until the beneficiary knows about the contract