[Anonymous]

Hello.

I just ran into the following multiple choice in Wiley Test Bank:

QUESTION:

Nancy is asserting rights as a third-party donee beneficiary on a contract made by Johnson and Harding. In order to prevail, Nancy must prove that:

1) She gave consideration for the donative promise.

2) She is related by blood or marriage to the promisee.

3) The terms of the contract and surrounding circumstances manifest a clear intent to benefit her.

4) She is specifically named in the contract.

ANSWER:

3) The terms of the contract and surrounding circumstances manifest a clear intent to benefit her.

Had it said “…to benefit her only.” or “…her specifically.” I feel that it could be valid, however, the way it stands the Wiley answer seems readily applicable to an incidental beneficiary and a little too vague to apply to an intended beneficiary. It seems that being “specifically named in the contract” is the more correct answer. Becker states that “At a minimum, the third party must be named or specifically described in the contract.”

Does anyone else think that this question is poorly worded and could potentially go either way, or is my thinking off?

Thank you!

[barelystayingsane]

I can see your thinking on why #3 wouldn't be correct, but it is the most correct answer. #4 is clearly wrong, because she does not have to prove that she was specifically named. Like you said, she could also prove that she was specifically described. That means that #4 is not complete enough to answer the question.

I'm not sure of the best way to explain why #3 is the correct answer, since I see where you're coming from. I guess maybe “clear intent” is supposed to cover both naming her and specifically describing her.

[Author]

Replies