Third Party Beneficiary. John Castle and Leonard Harlan, who headed Castle Harlan, Inc, an investment firm, entered into an agreement with the federal government to buy Western Empire Federal Savings and Loan. Under the agreement, Castle Harlan was to
invest a nominal amount in the bank and arrange for others to invest much more, in exchange for, among other things, a promise that for two years, Western Empire would not be subject to certain restrictions in federal regulations. The government's enforcement of other regulations against Western Empire led to its going out of business. Castle, Harlan, and the other investors filed a suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the government, alleging breach of contract. The government filed a motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs except Castle and Harlan, on the ground that the others did not sign the contract between the government and Castle and Harlan. Is the government correct? Should the court dismiss the claims brought by the other investors? Why or why not?
Third party beneficiary
The court denied the government's motion to dismiss the other plaintiffs. The other investors argued in part that they were intended third-party beneficiaries of the contract. The court recognized that "a third party who is an intended beneficiary of a contract may sue to enforce the contract or to obtain an appropriate remedy for breach." Here, the court explained that all of the parties to the contract intended the benefits of the contractual promises to run to the investors in Western Empire to "make their investment financially sound." The court reasoned that "[t]he very purpose of the contract" was to "enshrine a modified regulatory regime under which Western Empire would operate that would induce investors" to invest in the bank. "It was for the investors' benefit, to induce their investments, that the government made its promises." For a party to qualify as a third party beneficiary, a contract must "reflect the express or implied intention of the parties to benefit the third party." In this case, "[i]t is clear to the court that the ‘implied intention' of the parties was to benefit the investors, and that they fall within the class—indeed they comprise the entirety of the class—that was intended to benefit from the government's promises."
You might also like to view...
The way a person typically acts or reacts under certain circumstances is referred to as that person's primary behavior pattern.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
Which of the following is a true statement about the Four Ps of the marketing mix?
A) A decision about one of the Ps affects every other marketing-mix decision. B) Product is always the most important of the Four Ps. C) Place is typically the least important of the Four Ps. D) The Four Ps have little effect on a product's market position. E) The Four Ps are used to determine a product's target market.
Airlines practicing code sharing is an example of _______.
What will be an ideal response?
Riya has recently started a restaurant in a commercial area that already has many other established restaurants and popular fast-food chains. Riya owns the building in which her restaurant is located, rather than leasing premises as her competitors do. This factor allows her to offer her products at a more competitive price. Riya has also invested a huge amount in designing the restaurant's interior and in equipping the kitchen with the appliances that are most widely used in her industry. In this scenario, which of the following is the most valuable resource for Riya's business?
A. the restaurant's late entry into the market B. the building owned by Riya, which reduces cost of operations C. the investments made by Riya on the restaurant's interior D. the type of kitchen equipment widely used in her industry