Skip to content
LL.B Mania
LL.B Mania

MSME (UAM No. JH-04-0001870)

  • About
    • Core Team
    • Public Relations & Media
    • Editorial Board [BLOG]
    • Advisory Board
  • OpEd
  • BLOG
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Business Law
    • Case Analysis
    • Contract Law
    • Constitutional Law
    • Company Law
    • Competition Law
    • Consumer Law
    • Civil Law
    • CLAT
    • Criminal Law
    • Cyber Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Evidence Law
    • Family Law
    • Health Law
    • Hindu Law
    • Human Rights Law
    • International Law
    • Intellectual Property Law
    • Insolvency & Bankruptcy Law
    • Judiciary
    • Law of Contracts
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Sports Law
    • Technology Law
    • Tort Law
  • Interview
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
    • Publish with Us
LL.B Mania
LL.B Mania

MSME (UAM No. JH-04-0001870)

March 25, 2021

Beswick v. Beswick [1968]

By Kamana Divya Sree (DSNLU, Vizag)

Facts of Case

Mr. Peter Beswick, an elderly coal merchant entered into an agreement with his nephew Mr. John Joseph Beswick on 14th March 1962. Under this agreement, Mr. Peter Beswick assigned the assets of his coal business to his nephew Mr. John Joseph Beswick and in return, his nephew agreed to pay him a sum of £6  10s  per week rest of his life and after his death £5 to be paid to his wife i.e Mrs. Peter Beswick as an annuity. Mr. John Joseph Beswick paid Mr. Peter Beswick until his death and made only one payment to his widow. Mrs. Peter Beswick brought an action against Mr. John Joseph Beswick for failing to pay the annuity. She did so in two capacities :

1)  As administratrix of her late husband’s estate; and

2) In her personal capacity

Issue

Can Mrs. Peter Beswick sue her nephew either in her own personal capacity or in the capacity of the executrix of the will, or both?

Judgement

Court of Appeal 

Initially the Vice-Chancellor of the Chancery Court of the country Palatine of Lancaster dismissed the claim for specific performance. Then the case came to the the court of appeal. Here Mr. Lord Denning held that the plaintiff is entitled to remedy both in her personal capacity and also as the adminstratix of her late huband’s estate. 

House of Lords

Upon appeal to the House of Lords, it was held that Mrs. Peter Beswick in her capacity as an adminstratix was entitled to specific performance of the agreement made between her husband and her husband’s nephew. It was also held that the commonly existing Doctrine of Privity of Contract had to be applied and Mrs. Peter Beswick’s action under personal capacity cannot be maintained. 

Legal Terms

Doctrine of Privity of Contract

“A person who is not a party to a contract cannot enforce it or any of its terms. Even if the person can show that one of the parties to the contract was acting as his agent, he will still be unable to enforce it if he has not provided consideration”

In general privity of contract as a relation where the parties entering into a contract can sue each other but restrict it from letting a third person sue them.  Only the parties entering into the contract can sue each other. Only a promisee may enforce the contract and if a third person is not a promisee to the contract then he has no right to enforce it.  This principle was stated in the case Dunlope True Co v. Selfridge. There is also a principle which says that the consideration must move from the promisee which was given in the Tweddle v. Atkinson case.  The privity of contract only occurs between parties in a contract and is most common in contract of sale of goods or services.

Specific Performance

Specific performance is an equitable relief granted by the Court to enforce contractual obligations between the parties. It is a remedy in performance as opposed to a claim sounding in damages for breach of contract where pecuniary compensation is granted as relief for failure to carry out the terms of the contract.

Post Views: 2,224

Related

Case Analysis Civil Law Law of Contracts

Post navigation

Previous post
Next post

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tweets by llbmania

Recent Posts

  • South Korea Emulates EU’s Model of Comprehensive AI Regulation
  • Access to Justice for Poor Prisoners – A Distant Reality!
  • Winzo Games Pvt Limited vs Google LLC [Case No. 42 of 2022, CCI]
  • Social Media and IP Protection in the Digital Landscape
  • Navigating the Constitutional Complexities of Section 166(3), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA, 1988): Time-Barred Claims and condonation of delay

Archives

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
©2025 LL.B Mania | WordPress Theme by SuperbThemes