Appeal dismissed for lack of contractual rights, consideration, and non-party status.

The appeal was dismissed as the appellants, not being parties to the contract, could not enforce it. There was no consideration from the appellants to the respondents. The claim of being undisclosed principals lacked supporting consideration and was inconsistent with the contract terms. The price maintenance agreement could not be enforced due to lack of consideration and the appellants' non-party status. The Court of Appeal's judgment was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellants, who were not parties to the contract, could enforce it.
2. Whether there was sufficient consideration moving from the appellants to the respondents to support the contract.
3. The legal standing of the appellants as undisclosed principals.
4. The interpretation and enforceability of the price maintenance agreement.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Enforceability of the Contract by Non-Parties:
The primary issue is whether the appellants, who were not explicitly parties to the contract dated January 2, 1912, could enforce its terms. The judgment reaffirms the fundamental principle of English contract law that only parties to a contract can sue on it. The appellants were not parties to the contract between Messrs. Dew and the respondents. The law does not recognize a jus quaesitum tertio (a right acquired by a third party) arising from a contract. Therefore, the appellants could not enforce the contract as they were strangers to it.

2. Consideration Moving from the Appellants:
The judgment extensively discusses the requirement of consideration for enforcing a contract. It was determined that the consideration for the contract in question was provided solely by Messrs. Dew, not the appellants. The appellants did not give any consideration directly or indirectly to the respondents. The allowance of discounts by Messrs. Dew was out of their own pocket and not from the appellants. Hence, there was no consideration moving from the appellants to support the contract, making it unenforceable by them.

3. Legal Standing as Undisclosed Principals:
The appellants claimed to be undisclosed principals in the contract between Messrs. Dew and the respondents. However, the judgment highlights that even if the appellants were considered undisclosed principals, they still needed to show that consideration moved from them to the respondents. Since no such consideration was provided, the appellants could not enforce the contract. Additionally, the judgment notes that the terms of the contract were inconsistent with the appellants being undisclosed principals, further weakening their position.

4. Interpretation and Enforceability of the Price Maintenance Agreement:
The contract between Messrs. Dew and the appellants included a price maintenance agreement, which required Messrs. Dew to obtain written undertakings from their customers to adhere to the appellants' price list. The respondents did sign such an undertaking, but the appellants could not enforce it due to the lack of consideration and their status as non-parties to the contract. The judgment also clarifies that Messrs. Dew had the authority to resell the goods under the terms of their agreement with the appellants, and the appellants had no direct control over these sales.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the appellants, not being parties to the contract, could not enforce it. Additionally, there was no consideration moving from the appellants to the respondents to support the contract. The appellants' claim to be undisclosed principals was inconsistent with the contract's terms, and the price maintenance agreement could not be enforced by the appellants. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

---