Its panel of appeal judges reinforced that the doctrine of privity meant that only those who are party to an agreement (outside of one of the well-established exceptional relationships such as agency, bailment or trusteeship) may sue or be sued on it and established the principle that "consideration must flow from the promisee".
This ruling clarified that the concept of privity restricts who can bring a lawsuit (or be sued) based on an agreement, excluding those in exceptional circumstances such as representation, deposit, or guardianship. The court also established the requirement that consideration must arise from the person being promised.