End-of-chapter questions: Answer Guidance 10.1

You might first consider whether Doug has any rights under the 1999 Act. The term that the winnings will be divided equally between the three of them does purport to confer a benefit on Doug (s1(1)(b)). There might be a question that then arises as to whether Francis and Clare can unilaterally alter the contract: has Doug communicated his assent to the promisor (s2(1)(a))?

If Doug does not obtain a right under the 1999 Act, then it is unlikely that he could establish a right at common law (trust of a promise?) and will rely upon Clare suing Francis. Given this is an obligation to pay a single sum of money, it is unlikely that specific performance would be granted (cf Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58, HL). However, if Clare sues for damages there is a difficult question surrounding whether or not she could also recover for Doug’s loss (see Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85). It may be that if Doug has a right to sue independently (under the 1999 Act) then he should bring such a claim rather than rely upon Clare (cf Panatown Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd [2000] 4 All ER 97, HL).