NIGER DELTA UNIVERSITY,

WIBERFORCE ISLAND
AMASSOMA
BAYELSA STATE

NAME: ALLAGOA ESINKUMA

MATRIC NO: UG\12/1623
FACULTY: LAW
DEPARTMENT: CIVIL LAW
COURSE TITLE: EQUITY AND TRUST
COURSE CODE: PPL 403
DATE: June 17, 2016
ASSIGNMENT TITLE:
AN ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IN
BESWICK V BESWICK

INTRODUCTION
This paper intends to look at the position of the court in granting an order of
Specific Performance to Mrs. Beswick against John Joseph Beswick, in the case of
Beswick v Beswick(1968) AC 58. To achieve this, it is necessary to first look at the
Meaning of contract Privity of contract and Specific Performance.
Tobi J.C.A., has defined a contract as An agreement between two or more parties
which creates reciprocal legal obligations to do or not to do particular things. A
contract has also been defined as An agreement which the law will enforce or
recognize as affecting the legal rights and duties of the parties.
The general rule of Privity of contract states that A contract cannot confer
enforceable rights or impose obligations under it on any person, except parties to it.
Consequently, only parties to a contract can sue to enforce it. However, there are
exceptions to this rule of Privity of contract, which include; Covenants running
with land, Contracts for the hire of a chattel, Interference with contractual rights,
Restrictions upon price & The Privity and trust concept etc.
Among all of these exceptions, of particular interest to this work is, The Privity and
trust concept. The concept is explained thus,
Where A , for a consideration from B, promises B that he will confer a benefit on
C, it is clear that C, not a party to the contract and offering no consideration,
cannot bring an action to enforce the contract against A. only B can do so. But
should B be unwilling to do so, or be dead, equity will treat B as trustee for C with
regard to the agreement and will allow C to join B to A as defendants, and sue on
the agreement, or where B is dead, sue A alone to enforce the agreement.
This case is a prime example of such situation

Facts
O

ld 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 neighborhood. His nephew John Joseph Beswick
helped him in his business. In March 1962, Old Peter Beswick and his wife were
over 70. He 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 was to 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 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 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 Privities of contract Judgment (Court of
Appeal).
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, Where a contract is
made for the benefit of a third party who has legitimate interest to enforce it, it can
be enforced by the third party in the name of the contracting party or jointly with
him, or, if he refuses to join, by adding him as a defendant. In that sense that and it
is a very real sense, the third party has a right arising from contract.

Danckwerts L.J and Salmon L.J concurred in the result, though not with Lord
Dennings reasoning.

House of Lords
The House of Lords 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 could enforce the nephews promise to pay the annuity in
her capacity as Mr. Beswicks administratrix. Furthermore they held that Mrs.
Beswick was entitled to specific performance of the contract.