#6718 - Beswick V. Beswick - Commercial Remedies BCL

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 6 10s. per week for the remainder of his life and then to pay to the respondent an annuity of 5 per week in the event of her husband's death. The husband died in November, 1963. Thereupon, the appellant made one payment of 5 to the respondent but he refused to make any further payment to her. The respondent now sues for 175 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 opinion that specific performance ought to be ordered. For the reasons given by your Lordships I would reject the arguments submitted for the appellant that specific performance is not a possible remedy in this case. I am therefore of opinion that the Court of Appeal reached a correct decision and that this appeal should be dismissed.

Lord Hudson

The peculiar feature of this case is that the plaintiff is not only the personal representative of the deceased but also his widow and the person beneficially entitled to the money claimed. Although the widow cannot claim specific performance in her personal capacity, there is no objection to her doing so in her capacity as administratrix, and when the moneys are recovered they will be in this instance held for the benefit of herself as the person for whom they are intended.

In such a case as this, there having been an unconscionable breach of faith, the equitable remedy sought is apt. The appellant has had the full benefit of the contract and the court will be ready to see that he performs his part (see the judgment of Kay J. in Hart v. Hart 86.

Lord Pearce

Widow suing for the estate is entitled to substantial damages

It is argued that the estate can only recover nominal damages and that no other remedy is open, either to the estate or to the personal plaintiff. Such a result would be wholly repugnant to justice and commonsense. and if the argument were right it would show a very serious defect in the law. In the first place, I do not accept the view that damages must be nominal.

In the present case I think that the damages, if assessed, must be substantial. It is not necessary, however, to consider the amount of damages more closely since this is a case in which, as the Court of Appeal rightly decided, the more appropriate remedy is that of specific performance.

Despite this, widow is entitled to specific performance

The administratrix is entitled, if she so prefers, to enforce the agreement rather than accept its repudiation, and specific performance is more convenient than an action for arrears of payment followed by separate actions as each sum falls due. Moreover, damages for breach would be a less appropriate remedy since the parties to the agreement were intending an annuity for a widow; and a lump sum of damages does not accord with this and if (contrary...