The fact that there is, in reality, no privity between the promisor and the beneficiary, still causes trouble and confusion in some jurisdictions. The cases in which it is insisted that privity is necessary, are generally cases in which the court denies the right of the beneficiary to enforce the contract and in which the absence of privity is invoked as a justification for such refusal.1 Where the right of the beneficiary to recover is recognized, privity is sometimes said to be necessary,2 but privity in this sense is regarded as existing whenever the intention of the contract is to confer a benefit upon the third person.3 Where the right of the beneficiary is recognized and the necessity of privity is still insisted upon, it is sometimes said that the law creates the privity between the parties.4 The right of the beneficiary to recover is also explained on the theory that the promisor is estopped to deny the privity between the promisor and the beneficiary, if it has received a consideration from the promisee.5 The explanation which meets the actual facts of the case is that if the contract is intended for the benefit of a third person, it is not necessary that there should be any privity between the beneficiary and the promisor.6