Privity of Contract vs Privity of Consideration

1 min read

Basis	Stranger to Contract (Privity of Contract)	Stranger to Consideration (Privity of Consideration)
Meaning	A person who is not a party to the contract.	A person who has not provided consideration for the promise.
Main question	“Can a third party enforce the contract?”	“Must consideration move only from the promisee, or can it move from someone else?”
General rule	Cannot sue on the contract because there is no privity (subject to exceptions).	In India, it is not a bar if the promisee did not give consideration, because it may move from another person.
Indian statutory basis	Not expressly stated, but implied through the ICA scheme (e.g., Sections 2(h), 10, 37, 73).	Section 2(d), ICA: consideration may move from the promisee or any other person.
Position in English law (traditional)	Strict: only parties can sue (classic rule).	Traditionally stricter: consideration generally must move from promisee.
Position in Indian law	Generally follows privity of contract, with recognized exceptions (trust, family settlement, charge, agency, assignment, etc.).	Rejects strict privity of consideration (allows third-party consideration).
Leading case	Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Selfridge (1915) — stranger to contract cannot sue.	Chinnaya v. Ramayya (1882) — consideration may move from a third party, promise still enforceable.
Practical example	A and B contract that B will pay ₹10,000 to C. C cannot sue B unless an exception applies.	A gives property to B; B promises to pay annuity to C. Even though C gave no consideration, C can enforce (India).
Exam “one-liner”	Stranger to contract = no right to sue (unless exception).	Stranger to consideration = not a problem in India due to Section 2(d).