Abstract
From the time the New York Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff had standing to sue on a contract to which he was not a party,' even though the contracting parties had made him no promise, 2 courts in this country have struggled to define when and to what extent "third party beneficiaries" can recover based on the contracts of others. Third party beneficiary standing is now an accepted part of American law, with "intent to benefit" generally recognized as the determinative element in questions of standing. However, there is little consensus on such questions as whose intent is controlling, how that intent is to be discovered, and just how far third party standing extends. These questions become more complex in cases in which the performance does not run directly to the third party and in which the court seems more intent on protecting the public than the bargain.
Recommended Citation
Powers, Jean Fleming
(1993)
"Expanded Liability and the Intent
Requirement in Third Party
Beneficiary Contracts,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1993:
No.
1, Article 2.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1993/iss1/2