This is sensible law, and brings about justice in principle. The legal theory
is more of a problem. Lord Denning’s idea was not the actual law at the
time, but what he thought the law should be. Predictably, the House of
Lords were not too happy about him taking this line, as it was not following
precedent, and they took up the debate on this case in the following case.
As with Tweddle v Atkinson, the law may be different if a similar
situation arose today following the introduction of statute. In fact, even
before the recent change to the law by statute, there has been a move to
allowing claims which were technically within the doctrine of privity, if to
disallow them would be unjust. This was so in Linden Gardens Trust v
Lenesta Sludge Disposals (1994) where the original owners of a building
site were able to claim against builders for compensation for breach, when
the actual harm suffered was by the later owners of the buildings. Clearly
the new owners needed a remedy, and it was just that the original
developers should enforce the claim.
Because there were so many problems with the law of privity, a number
of exceptions have been established. These have arisen out of obvious need
for legislation, and show that the doctrine itself was not totally satisfactory.
Privity of contract 135Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd (1975)
Mr Jackson booked a holiday in Sri Lanka, with the defendant holiday
company, for himself and his family. The hotel and meals were not as
described, and the family were disappointed, so Mr Jackson sued for
damages for himself and his family. The Court of Appeal held that
damages could be given, despite the fact that the contract for the
holiday was between Mr Jackson and the company. According to the
strict law of privity he should only have been able to enforce payment
for his own disappointment. Lord Denning likened the situation to a
host booking a meal in a restaurant for himself and others for a
celebratory meal, and finding that the restaurant could not have them.
The host would wish to claim return of deposits and compensation for
all of the party.Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd
(1980)
The House of Lords agreed with the outcome of Jackson v Horizon as
being just and reasonable in the circumstances, but disagreed with the
way in which the decision was reached. They would obviously feel that
it was not the role of the Court of Appeal to change the law, but that a
special category of cases should be created to deal with situations like
this where one person contracts on behalf of a group.