Beswick v Beswick
| Beswick v Beswick | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | House of Lords |
| Decided | 29 June 1967 |
| Citation(s) | [1968] AC 58 [1967] UKHL 2 |
| Transcript(s) | Full text of judgment |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | [1966] Ch 538, [1966] 3 WLR 396, [1966] 3 All ER 1 |
| Case opinions | |
| Lord Reid, Lord Pearce, Lord Upjohn and Lord Guest | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting |
Lord Reid Lord Pearce Lord Upjohn Lord Guest Lord Hodson |
| Keywords | |
| Privity, third parties, consideration, specific performance | |
Beswick v Beswick [1967] UKHL 2, [1968] AC 58 is a landmark English contract law case on privity of contract and specific performance. The House of Lords disagreed with Lord Denning MR's dicta in the Court of Appeal that someone specifically intended to benefit from a contract could enforce it.
Today the position has been reversed by statute in the United Kingdom, and Lord Denning MR's decision has largely been given effect by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. However the case remains good law in many other common law jurisdictions.
Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal started describing the facts of the case in the following way.
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.
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 of contract.
Lord Denning held that Mrs Beswick was entitled to claim in her capacity as a third party intended to benefit from the contract. He said,
Danckwerts LJ and Salmon LJ concurred in the result, though not with Lord Denning's reasoning.
The House of Lords disagreed with Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal, that the law allowed third parties to sue to enforce benefits under a contract. However, they held that Mrs Beswick in her capacity as Mr Beswick's administratrix (i.e. as the person representing someone's estate who dies without a will) could enforce the nephew's promise to pay Mrs Beswick an annuity. Furthermore, Mrs Beswick was entitled to specific performance of the contract.
...
Wikipedia