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".
Its appeal court judges validated that the concept of privity implies that only parties directly involved in an agreement (excluding specific exceptions like representation, deposit, or guardianship) can initiate or respond to a lawsuit and established the rule that "consideration must stem from the obligee".