Beswick v. Beswick

"Beswick v. Beswick" (1966) Ch. 538, [1968] AC 58 is a landmark English contract case on privity of contract.

Background

Lord Denning described the facts of the case::"Old Peter Beswick was a coal merchant in Eccles, Lancashire. He had no business premises. All he had was a lorry, scales, and weights. He used to take the lorry to the yard of the National Coal Board, where he bagged coal and took it round to his customers in the neighbourhood. His nephew, John Joseph Beswick, helped him in his business. In March 1962, old Peter Beswick and his wife were both over 70. He had had his leg amputated and was not in good health. The nephew was anxious to get hold of the business before the old man died. So they went to a solicitor, Mr. Ashcroft, who drew up an agreement for them".

The agreement was that Peter assign his business to his nephew in consideration of the nephew employing him for the rest of his life and then paying a weekly annuity to Mrs. Beswick. Since the latter term was for the benefit of someone not party to the contract, the nephew did not believe it was enforceable and so did not perform it, making only one payment of the agreed weekly amount of 5 pounds.

Opinion of the Court

The nephew argued that as Mrs Beswick was not a party to the contract, she was not able to enforce it due to the doctrine of Privity.

The Court held that this was true, and that she could not enforce the contract as herself. However they allowed her to recover as she had been appointed as the Administratrix of her husband's estate (he had not left a will), and as such was able to enforce the contract. She was, in her capacity as administratrix, entitled to an order for specific performance. In a separate opinion, Lord Denning held that the widow could not only sue as administratrix of the estate, but as third party beneficiary. In his view, the third-party beneficiary rule was not founded on earlier authority and would have led to an inequitable result.

The case was appealed to the House of Lords where the Lordships sided with the majority, while rejecting Lord Denning's contention that the widow could sue as beneficiary.

ee also

* [http://www.personalweb.unito.it/ugo.mattei/Beswick%20v%20Beswick.htm full text of House of Lords decision]
* [http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1967/2.html Full text of decision from bailii.org]
* "Coulls v Bagot’s Executor and Trustee Co Ltd" (1967) 119 CLR 460. In this Australian case, the contract was between the husband and the company, not the wife, so she wasn’t a party to it. Even if she was, she wouldn’t be able to enforce it, as she gave no consideration. She did get it though, as executor of her husband’s estate. This is more of a consideration case but also touches on Privity.