In 2001, the City of New York and the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) entered into an agreement to build a forensic biology laboratory in Manhattan. Per the agreement, DASNY would finance and manage the design and construction of the laboratory. Before the project commenced, DASNY entered into a contract with Perkins Eastman Architects, P.C., to provide design, architectural, and engineering services for the project and supervise its construction. Pursuant to a separate contract, DASNY retained Samson Construction Co. to provide excavation and foundation work for the project. The contract between DASNY and Samson provided that the City “is an intended third party beneficiary of the Contract for the purposes of recovering any damages caused by [Samson].” No such language existed in the Perkins contract.

Work began on the project in May 2002. Soon thereafter, it was found Samson failed to properly install an excavation support system, leading to an 18-month delay and additional costs of $37 million. DASNY and the City filed suit against Samson in 2006, and later added Perkins as a defendant in 2007. The complaint alleged that Perkins breached the contract by failing to properly supervise Samson, which led to its faulty work. Perkins moved to dismiss on the grounds that, among other things, the City was not an intended third-party beneficiary to the contract between it and DASNY. How do you think the court ruled? Do you think it is important that the City was not directly named as a third-party beneficiary in the Perkins contract? How does the language in the Samson contract play into your answer?