受诺人必须提供对价(consideration)的规则和合同仅在当事人间有效的理论(doctrine of privity)在两方面受到批评。首先,可以从理论上去批评。这就是说,在判决中和在教科书中所阐述的这两个规则与正在为法院适用和将被法院适用的法律不一致。举一个例子,1946年摩托车保险局与交通部达成了一项协议,协议规定,未经保险的司机撞伤受害者由摩托车保险局承担赔偿责任。当然,受害者不是这项协议的当事人。但是,在加登纳诉穆 The rules that the promisee must provide consideration and the doctrine of privity where the contract is only between the parties are criticized in two ways. First, we can criticize it theoretically. This means that the two rules set out in judgments and in textbooks are not compatible with the law that is being applied to courts and to which courts are applying. As an example, in 1946 the Motorcycle Insurance Agency reached an agreement with the Department of Transportation that stipulated that uninsured drivers should be liable for compensation by the Motorcycle Insurance Agency. Of course, the victim is not a party to this agreement. But at Gardener v. Mu