Facts: Mr Coulls owned a property, and entered a contract with O’Neil Constructions to quarry on it with royalties to be paid to himself and his wife. Provision was made for payments "going to the living partner". Mr Coulls died. The question arising was whether his wife was a party to the contract and could enforce the contract in view of the fact that she offered no consideration on the contract.
Held (High Court; Taylor, Owen and Tiernman JJ - majority): The wife was not a party to the contract.
Held (Taylor and Owen JJ - majority): The contract was between O’Neil Constructions and Mr Coulls alone. However, they went on to consider the joint promisee situation, and said that where only one of 2 joint promisees provides the consideration for the promise, it does not mean that the other promisee cannot benefit from it. If Mrs Coulls had been a party, the fact that it was her husband who had provided the consideration would not have been an impediment to her.