Question
Potential expert witnesses made an oral agreement with a plaintiff's attorney to testify on behalf of the plaintiff for $60,000.However, after receiving the money, the
Potential expert witnesses made an oral agreement with a plaintiff's attorney to testify on behalf of the plaintiff for $60,000.However, after receiving the money, the witnesses backed out of the agreement and said they would not testify in court or pay back the money.The witnesses claimed that the plaintiff could not sue them because their oral contract was with the attorney and not the plaintiff.Yet the plaintiff claimed she could sue because she was a third-party beneficiary to the contract.The court made a landmark decision regarding expert witnesses and third-party beneficiary case law.What was the rationale for such a surprising decision? [Isbell v. Friedman,U.S. App. No. 11-2113.
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started