Blueprint_Third_Party_Beneficiary

David and Sandra Dess contracted with Sirva Relocation, LLC, to assist in selling their home. In their contract, the Desses agreed to disclose all information about the property on which Sirva "and other prospective buyers may rely in deciding whether and on what terms to purchase the Property." The Kincaids contracted with Sirva to buy the house. After the closing, they discovered dampness in the walls, defective and rotten windows, mold, and other undisclosed problems.

This case primary deals with: a. notice of assignment

b. a delegation of a duty

c. rights of a third party beneficiary

Who are the direct parties to the initial contract? 1. (a. Desses b. Kincaids) 2. (a. Sirva Relocation, LLC b. Kincaids)

Who is the promisor under the contract? a. Desses

b.Sirva Relocation, LLC

c. Kincaids

Who is the promisee under the contract? a. Desses

b. Sirva Relocation, LLC

c. Kincaids

Who is the third party beneficiary in this case? a. Desses

b. Sirva Relocation, LLC

c. Kincaids

The Kincaids would have asserted that they are what type of third party beneficiary? a. Incidental Beneficiary

b. Intended Beneficiary

c. Creditor Beneficiary

d. Donee Beneficiary

The Desses would have asserted that the Kincaids are what type of third party beneficiary?

a. Incidental Beneficiary

b. Intended Beneficiary

c. Creditor Beneficiary

d. Donee Beneficiary

A third party that is considered an intended beneficiary to a contract can sue the promisor for breach of contract. (Yes or No)

A third party that is considered an incidental beneficiary to a contract can sue the promisor for breach of contract. (Yes or No)

Which type of third party beneficiary would generally have standing in a third party breach of contract case: a. Incidental Beneficiary

b. Intended Beneficiary

If considered an intended beneficiary, the Kincaids would most likely fall under what category of beneficiary? a. Creditor Beneficiary

b. Donee Beneficiary

c. Prospective Buyer Beneficiary

Aside from the language of the contract and other surrounding circumstances, which of the following factors would a court likely focus on in determining whether a beneficiary is an intended or incidental beneficiary:

1. a. performance is rendered directly to the third party

b. the third party indicates in writing that it is an intended beneficiary

c. the third party asserts in a lawsuit that it has privity of contract

2. a. the third party has the right to control details of the performance

b. the third party indicates in writing that it is an intended beneficiary

c. the third party asserts in a lawsuit that it has privity of contract

3. a. the third party indicates in writing that it is an intended beneficiary

b. the third party is expressly designated as a beneficiary in the contract

c, the third party asserts in a lawsuit that it has privity of contract

To be considered a designated beneficiary (or intended beneficiary) under the contract, the name "Kincaids" must expressly appear in the terms of the contract? (Yes or No)

Assuming the Kincaids are considered an intended beneficiary, at what time did their interest most likely vest? a. when the Desses entered into a contract with Sirva

b. when the Kincaids contracted with Sirva to purchase the house

c. when the Kincaids filed suit

What is one benefit of permitting the Kincaids to directly sue the promisor, the Desees, as opposed to having to sue Sirva? a. the Kincaids can file suit as the plaintiff

b. reduces the burden on the courts

c. Sirva will not have to sue the Kincaids

Is it likely that the court ruled in favor of the Kincaids? (Yes or No)

In the case, the court focused on the language of the contract. In the contract, the Desses agreed to fully disclose all information about the property. Further, under the terms of the contract, it was agreed that Sirva and "other prospective buyers" could rely on the Desses' disclosures.

Would the Desses have had a stronger case if the contract was silent as to which parties could rely on the Desses' disclosures? (Yes or No)

Why?

a. the Desses would no longer have been the promisor under the contract

b. the contract would not have been binding on the Desses and Sirva

c. without the language "other prospective buyer," the court would likely not have found that there was a designated class of third party beneficiaries under the contract