C.L.A.W Legal is a community initiative supported by: Call for Papers by NLIU Journal of Labour and Employmen... Surveillance: Era of End to the Right to Privacy. IN Beswick v. Beswick an uncle transferred his business to his nephew. If the words of the Act are only capable of one meaning we must give them that meaning no matter how they got there. 5449): "That where a contract by its express terms purports to confer a benefit directly on a third party it shall be enforceable by the third party in his own name ..." (p. 31). Mrs. Beswick was unsuccessful at trial and successful at appeal, which John Joseph Beswick appealed. I am therefore of opinion that the Court of Appeal reached a correct decision and that this appeal should be dismissed. Bagots was entitled to the benefit of this contract as executor of Mr Coull's Estate. [1951] Ch. [4] and the Court of Appeal supports what I have just said. Facts. The context in which this section occurs is a consolidation Act. He said:[6], "Just as under section 5 of the Act of 1845 only that person could call it in aid who, although not a party, yet was a grantee or covenantee, so under section 56 of this Act only that person can call it in aid who, although not named as a party to the conveyance or other instrument, is yet a person to whom that conveyance or other instrument purports to grant something or with which some agreement or covenant is purported to be made.". He died, and the nephew only paid his aunt once before stating that no contract existed between them. A man who makes a deliberate promise which is intended to be binding, that is to say, under seal, or for good consideration, must keep his promise; and the court will hold him to it, not only at the suit of the party who gave the consideration but also at the suit of one who was not a party to the contract, provided that it was made for his benefit and that he has a sufficient interest to entitle him to enforce it, subject always, of course, to any defences that may be open on the merits. Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58. However the champions of the cause in He said, The court held that it could be specifically enforced by the Uncle’s personal representative (the Aunty) against the nephew. He didn’t have any business premises. Holding that the section has such an effect would involve holding that the invariable practice of Parliament has been departed from per incuriam so that something has got into this consolidation Act which neither the draftsman nor Parliament can have intended to be there. But it may be that additional difficulties would arise from the application to section 56 of the definition of property in the definition section. If application of that definition would result in giving to section 56 a meaning going beyond that of the old section, then, in my opinion, the context does require that the definition of "property" shall not be applied to that word in section 56. 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. 250, Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board, Drive Yourself Hire Co. (London) Ltd. v. Strutt, Chelsea and Walham Green Building Society v. Armstrong, Coulls v. Bagot’s Executor and Trustee Co Ltd, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beswick_v_Beswick&oldid=903160939, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, [1966] Ch 538, [1966] 3 WLR 396, [1966] 3 All ER 1, Lord Reid, Lord Pearce, Lord Upjohn and Lord Guest, Privity, third parties, consideration, specific performance, Flannigan, 'Privity - The End of an Era (Error)' (1987) 103, This page was last edited on 24 June 2019, at 00:08. [3] As in the case of Chinnaya v Ramayya,[4]where an old lady made over certain landed property to the defendant, her daughter and according to the deed, the defendant was bound to pay an annuity amount of Rs. Section 56 was obviously intended to replace section 5 of the Real Property Act, 1845 (8 and 9 Vict. But the greatest difficulty in the way of the widow's right to sue personallyis that two cases in this House, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Selfridgeand Co. [1915] AC 847 and Midland Silicones Ltd. v. Scruttons Ltd. [1962]A.C. 446 clearly accepted the principle that a third party cannot sue ona contract to which he was not a party. That section provided: "That, under an indenture, executed after October 1, 1845, an immediate estate or interest, in any tenements or hereditaments, and the benefit of a condition or covenant, respecting any tenements or hereditaments, may be taken, although the taker thereof be not named a party to the same indenture. The daughters, not being parties to the agreement, had no right to sue for their annuities. In March 1962, old Peter Beswick and his wife were both over 70. So an agreement between A and B that A will use certain personal property for the benefit of X would be within the scope of the section, but an agreement that if A performs certain services for B, B will pay a sum to X would not be within the scope of the section. So, in order to pave the way for the consolidation Act of 1925, earlier Acts were passed in 1922 and 1924 in which were enacted all the substantial amendments which now appear in the Act of 1925 and these amendments were then incorporated in the Bill which became the Act of 1925. In Beswick v. Beswick (1967) the court held that since Mrs Beswick. 366; 59 T.L.R. I do not profess to have a full understanding of the old English law regarding deeds. The court of appeal, Lord Denning MR, following the revised principle allowed for the action and rightly called for the defendant to pay the arrears. If "land or other property" means the same thing as "tenements or hereditaments" in the Act of 1845 then this section simply continues the law as it was before the Act of 1925 was passed, for I do not think that the other differences in phraseology can be regarded as making any substantial change. 351, 365; 54 T.L.R. Lord Denning MR held that Mr Jackson could recover damages of £600 for defective performance and £500 for disappointment or ‘mental distress’ for himself and his family. 768, C.A. He agreed with the defendant to transfer his business’ goodwill and tools to the defendant. Lord Denning held that Mrs Beswick was entitled to claim in her capacity as a third party intended to benefit from the contract. ", Before further considering the meaning of section 56 (1) I must set out briefly the views which have been expressed about it in earlier cases. 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. But if they are capable of having more than one meaning we are, in my view, well entitled to see how they got there. 853; [1951] 2 T.L.R. said, in rejecting the same argument as Simonds J. had rejected: "Before he can enforce it he must be a person who falls within the scope and benefit of the covenant according to the true construction of the document in question.". They extended their attempts by drafting out the bill of “Contract Law (Privity of Contract and Third Party Rights) Bill, 2008.”-. Beswick V Beswick - Judgment - House of Lords House of Lords The House of Lords disagreed with Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal, that the law allowed third parties to … By agreement of 14th March, 1962, he assigned to his nephew the Appellant the assets of the business and the Appellant under- took […] [7] Privity of contract came to be established from the case of Tweddle v Atkinson,[8]where the plaintiff and G entered into a written contract that each of them will pay the plaintiff a certain amount  in exchange of the intended marriage between G’s daughter and plaintiff. Beswick v Beswick House of Lords. She was also the administratrix of her husband's will. Leading counsel for the respondent based his case on other grounds, and as I agree that the respondent succeeds on other grounds, this would not be an appropriate case in which to solve this question. c. 106) . 179, C.A. Applying what I have said to the circumstances of the present case, the respondent in her personal capacity has no right to sue, but she has a right as administratrix of her husband's estate to require the appellant to perform his obligation under the agreement. B. Henceforth in the famous case of Beswick v Beswick, where B, a coal merchant and the defendant, his assistant entered into a contract for the transfer of his business on his death to him in exchange of the defendant to pay his widow an annuity amount of $5 per week. and in Drive Yourself Hire Co. (London) Ltd. v. Strutt[13] Denning L.J. Danckwerts LJ and Salmon LJ concurred in the result, though not with Lord Denning's reasoning. Lord Reid Lord Reid Lord Hodson Lord Guest Lord Pearce Lord Upjohn my lords, Before 1962 the Respondent’s deceased husband carried on business as a coal merchant. I can now return to consider the meaning and scope of section 56. She was also the administratrix of her husband's will. It … 387, [1937] Ch. I am reinforced in this view by two facts. In the Court of Appeal[7] Sir Wilfrid Greene M.R. A nephew promised his Uncle to pay an annuity to his Aunty in consideration of the Uncle transferring the goodwill of the business to the nephew. 726-731. Even if she was, she would not be able to enforce it, as she gave no consideration. It was not argued that the law of England regards B's obligation as a nullity, and I have not observed in any of the authorities any suggestion that it would be a nullity. [1949] 2 K.B. So, if X has no right, A can at any time grant a discharge to B or make some new contract with B. Then the appellant says that A can only recover nominal damages of 40s. The rule as applied in common law states that a stranger to a contract cannot sue but in India, a stranger to a consideration can sue. 128; [1943] 2 All E.R. If that were so, I shall assume that he is right in maintaining that the administratrix could then only recover nominal damages because his breach of contract has caused no loss to the estate of her deceased husband. I cannot agree with that. He had no business premises. Indeed the contrary was not argued. ... HL held that 3rd party beneficiaries of a contract cannot sue on it, due to privity of contract. ISSUES 1. However, allowed her to sue in her capacity as administratix – in effect party to the contract. Lord Denning's view, expressed in this case not for the first time, is that X could enforce this obligation. What then is A's position? Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum and Ors. Contract law – Privity of contract – Specific performance. It would mean that the appellant keeps the business which he bought and for which he has only paid a small part of the price which he agreed to pay. Unlike the proposition of Common Law which requires the consideration to flow from the promise itself and no other person. Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 Business, nephew did not pay annuity to aunt- HELD: specific performance in role as administrix (not personal)- s5(1) LPA 1925 Gore v Van der Lann [1967] 2 QB 31 In Beswick v Beswick, the agreement was that Peter Beswick 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.
2020 beswick v beswick held