Legal Case Summary
Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58
Contract law – Privity of contract – Specific performance
Facts
PB was in poor health and agreed with the defendant, his nephew, that he would transfer the trade and good will of his coal business to him on the basis that the nephew employed him as a consultant for the rest of his life and paid him for this. The nephew also agreed to pay PBs wife after PB died for the rest of her life. She was not a party to the agreement. Upon the death of PB, the nephew paid PB’s wife once but then not again. PBs widow brought an action as administrator of PB’s estate and also in her personal capacity claiming for specific performance.
Issue
PB’s widow raised two interesting questions for the court to consider. The first was whether the widow, as an administrator to PB’s estate, could claim for an order of specific performance for PB’s nephew to honour his agreement. It was also important to see how the court weighed this claim alongside her claim on a personal level, which that she could claim as a party to the contract between her late husband and nephew.
Held
The court granted the widow an order of specific performance for the payment owed by PB’s nephew as an administrator to her husband’s estate. The court held that the damages would also not be limited due to the loss that had been caused to PB’s estate. However, the court found that PB’s widow could not claim under her personal capacity as she was a third party to the contract and was not a party to the original agreement.
Updated 19 March 2026
This summary of Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 remains legally accurate as a statement of the law at the time the case was decided. The decision correctly identifies that the widow succeeded as administratrix of the estate (obtaining specific performance) but failed in her personal capacity due to the doctrine of privity of contract.
However, readers should note that the common law doctrine of privity, which prevented the widow from recovering in her personal capacity, has since been significantly modified by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Under that Act, a third party may in certain circumstances enforce a contractual term conferring a benefit upon them, provided either that the contract expressly so provides or that the term purports to confer a benefit on that third party (and the promisor cannot rebut the presumption that the parties intended the term to be enforceable by the third party). Had the 1999 Act applied to the facts in Beswick, the widow might well have been able to enforce the annuity in her personal capacity without relying on her role as administratrix. The case therefore retains its historical and doctrinal importance, but students should read it alongside the 1999 Act when considering the current law on privity and third-party rights.
