Case Problem Analysis: Third Party Beneficiaries

Ava Flavell and other owners $($Flavell$)$ contracted with F$.$E$.$B$.$ General Contractors, Inc. $($FEB$)$ to conduct renovations on their historic residence. FEB subcontracted with Maxim Jakes Home Remodeling and Repair $($Jakes$)$ to perform the roofing work on the project. Jakes in turn subcontracted with Cal Bruce Home Improvements $($Bruce$),$ to conduct the roofing work on Jakes's behalf. When Bruce performed work on the roof, he "botched the job" and caused extensive leaking inside the house.

FEB and Jakes attempted to correct the problems, but eventually abandoned the project, leaving Flavell to hire others to complete the renovations. Flavell sued FEB, Jakes, and Bruce for breach of contract. Jakes sought to dismiss Flavell's claim against it$,$ arguing no privity of

Apply It: Third Party Beneficiaries

Total points: $-\frac{-}{5}$

Attempts left: $2$

An exception to the doctrine of privity of contract arises when a contract is intended to benefit a $1$ party. A third party that is considered an intended beneficiary to a contract sue the promisor for breach of contract. A third party that is considered an incidental beneficiary to a contract select answer $$ sue the promisor for breach of contract.

In determining whether a beneficiary is an intended or incidental beneficiary, the presence of one or more of the