Beswick v Beswick
A third party cannot sue on a contract personally, but the promisee's personal representative can obtain specific performance for the third party's benefit.
Facts
Peter Beswick, a coal merchant in Eccles, was elderly and in poor health. In 1962 he agreed in writing to transfer his business to his nephew, John Joseph Beswick. In return, the nephew promised to employ Peter as a consultant at £6 10s a week for the rest of his life and, after his death, to pay his widow an annuity of £5 a week. Peter died in 1963. The nephew made one payment to the widow and then refused to pay any more. The widow sued, both in her own name and as administratrix of her husband's estate.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the widow could not sue in her personal capacity, because she was not a party to the contract, and section 56(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 did not abolish privity of contract. However, as administratrix she stood in her husband's shoes as a party to the contract. Damages to the estate would have been nominal, because the estate itself had suffered no loss, so damages were an inadequate remedy. The House therefore ordered specific performance, requiring the nephew to make the payments to the widow.
Related cases on privity of contract
- Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd [2001] 1 AC 518
- Avraamides v Colwill [2006] EWCA Civ 1533
- Chudley v Clydesdale Bank plc [2019] EWCA Civ 344, [2020] QB 284
- Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 68
- Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847
- Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468
- Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v Artis (The Laemthong Glory) (No 2) [2005] EWCA Civ 519, [2005] 1 Lloyd's Rep 688
- Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
