This is an extract of our Beswick V. Beswick document, which we sell as part of our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
BESWICK V. BESWICK FACTS My Lords, before 1962 the respondent's deceased husband carried on business as a coal merchant. By agreement of March 14, 1962, he assigned to his nephew, the appellant, the assets of the business and the appellant undertook first to pay to him PS6 10s. per week for the remainder of his life and then to pay to the respondent an annuity of PS5 per week in the event of her husband's death. The husband died in November, 1963. Thereupon, the appellant made one payment of PS5 to the respondent but he refused to make any further payment to her. The respondent now sues for PS175 arrears of the annuity and for an order for specific performance of the continuing obligation to pay the annuity. It so happens that the respondent is administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband and she sues both in that capacity and in her personal capacity. HOLDING LORD REID Widow is only entitled to nominal damages - unjust result 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. He has refused to do so and he maintains that the respondent's only right is to sue him for damages for breach of his contract. 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. If that were the only remedy available the result would be grossly unjust. 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. He would avoid paying the rest of the price, the annuity to the respondent, by paying a mere 40s. damages. Order for specific performance The respondent's second argument is that she is entitled in her capacity of administratrix of her deceased husband's estate to enforce the provision of the agreement for the benefit of herself in her personal capacity, and that a proper way of enforcing that provision is to order specific performance. That would produce a just result, and, unless there is some technical objection, I am of
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes.