1. What do courts focus on when determining whether a third party beneficiary is an intended or an incidental beneficiary?
2. What right does the status of an intended beneficiary confer on a third party to a contract?
3. In this case, did the court conclude that the plaintiff was an intended or an incidental third party beneficiary? Why?
4. Did the plaintiff obtain the remedy that it sought in this case? Explain.
This action arises from construction work performed in two residential subdivisions in Antioch, [Illinois,] commonly known as the NeuHaven Subdivision and the Clublands Subdivision. Pursuant to the contract, Neumann [Homes, Inc.,] agreed to construct certain public improvements for the Village [of Antioch’s] benefit. Thereafter, Neumann and plaintiff [Lake County Grading Company] entered into agreements for plaintiff to perform certain grading work required under the contract. * * * Plaintiff completed the work in compliance with the contract but was not paid in full for its services.