P contracted for X to transport its goods and X employed D, stevedores, who dropped some packages. In the contract was a term limiting the amount for which the “carrier” would be liable in the event of damage to the packages. HL held that D could not rely on the limitation of liability since the contract was between P and X and therefore D was not entitled to its protection. I.e. there is no vicarious protection from contracts.
Lord Reid: There is a “general rule that a stranger to a contract cannot in a question with either of the contracting parties take advantage of provisions of the contract, even where it is clear from the contract that some provision in it was intended to benefit him.” This is demonstrated by Tweddle.