Ball Corp. v. Bohlin Building Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• confirming that contract controls third-party status and finding that contractor and subcontractor intended contract to impose obligations and benefits solely between the parties
• determining that a contract between the general contractor and a subcontractor did not directly benefit the owner where the contract expressly stated that it was the parties’ intent that no contractual relationship should exist between the owner and the subcontractor
• determining that a contract between the general contractor and a subcontractor did not directly benefit the owner where the contract expressly stated that it was the parties’ intent that no contractual relationship should exist between the owner and the 8 1-09-3563 subcontractor
• finding no third-party beneficiary was intended where the contract stated that “ ‘[n]othing contained in the contract documents shall create any contractual relation between any subcontractor and the Owner’ ”
• finding no third- party beneficiary was intended where the contract stated that “ ‘[n]othing contained in the contract documents shall create any contractual relation between any subcontractor and the Owner’ ”
• finding no third-party beneficiary was intended where the contract stated that “Nothing contained in the - 17 - No. 1-19-2427 contract documents shall create any contractual relation between any subcontractor and the Owner”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).