Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
| Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Full case name | Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Limited v Selfridge and Company, Limited |
| Decided | 26 April 1915 |
| Citation(s) |
[1915] UKHL 1 [1915] AC 847 |
| Transcript(s) | House of Lords transcript |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Court of Appeal |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting |
Viscount Haldane Lord Dunedin Lord Atkinson Lord Parker Lord Sumner Lord Parmoor |
| Keywords | |
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] UKHL 1 (26 April 1915), [1915] AC 847 is an English contract law case, with relevance for UK competition law decided in the House of Lords. It established that an agreement for resale price maintenance was unenforceable as a matter of privity of contract.[1]
It should not be confused with Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd,[2] a decision of the House of Lords in the preceding year relating to substantially the same resale price maintenance agreements.
Under the modern law of the Competition Act 1998 or EU competition law it would be regulated as an anticompetitive agreement.
Facts
Dunlop made tyres. It did not want them sold cheaply but to maintain a standard resale price. It agreed with its dealers (in this case Dew & Co) not to sell them below its recommended retail price. It also bargained for dealers to get the same undertaking from their retailers (in this case Selfridge). If retailers did sell below the list price, they would have to pay £5 a tyre in liquidated damages to Dunlop. Dunlop thus was a third party to a contract between Selfridge and Dew. When Selfridge sold the tyres at below the agreed price, Dunlop sued to enforce the contract by injunction and claimed damages. Selfridge argued that Dunlop could not enforce the burden of a contract between Dunlop and Dew, which Selfridge had not agreed to.
At trial, the judge of first instance, found in favour of Dunlop. In appeal the damages and injunction were reversed, saying that Selfridge was not a principal or an agent and thus was not bound. The issue put to the House of Lords as to whether Dunlop could get damages from Selfridge without a contractual relationship. The House of Lords, in a unanimous decision from Viscount Haldane L.C., Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Parker of Waddington, Lord Sumner, and Lord Parmoor, held that it could not.
Judgment
Viscount Haldane, based his argument on three fundamental principles in law:
- First, the doctrine of privity requires that only a party to a contract can sue.
- Second, the doctrine of consideration requires a person with whom a contract not under seal is made is only able to enforce it if there is consideration from the promisee to the promisor.
- Third, the doctrine of agency requires that a principal not named in the contract (an undisclosed principal) can only be sued if the promisor was contracted as an agent.
In application to the facts, Haldane could not find any consideration between Dunlop and Selfridge, nor could he find any indication of an agency relationship between Dew and Selfridge, for which separate consideration from that paid contractually by Selfridge to Dew would need to have been found. Consequently, Dunlop's action must fail.
See also
- English contract law
- Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79, regarding contract termination
Notes
- ↑ "Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] UKHL 1 (26 April 1915)". Judgmental.
- ↑ Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1914] UKHL 1 (1 July 1914)