<P> And, if one had to contemplate a further long period of Parliamentary procrastination, this House might find it necessary to deal with this matter . But if legislation is probable at any early date I would not deal with it in a case where that is not essential . So for the purposes of this case I shall proceed on the footing that the commonly accepted view is right . </P> <P> What then is A's position? I assume that A has not made himself a trustee for X, because it was not argued in this appeal that any trust had been created . So, if X has no right, A can at any time grant a discharge to B or make some new contract with B. If there were a trust the position would be different . X would have an equitable right and A would be entitled and, indeed, bound to recover the money and account for it to X. and A would have no right to grant a discharge to B. If there is no trust and A wishes to enforce the obligation, how does he set about it? He cannot sue B for the £ 1,000 because under the contract the money is not payable to him, and, if the contract were performed according to its terms, he would never have any right to get the money . So he must seek to make B pay X . </P> <P> The argument for the appellant is that A's only remedy is to sue B for damages for B's breach of contract in failing to pay the £ 1,000 to X . Then the appellant says that A can only recover nominal damages of 40s . because the fact that X has not received the money will generally cause no loss to A: he admits that there may be cases where A would suffer damage if X did not receive the money but says that the present is not such a case . </P> <P> 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 . </P>

Beswick v beswick 1966 3 all er 1 (ca)