Dillon v. Reid

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the third-party beneficiary need not be specifically named in a contract as long as the contracting parties’ intention to benefit the third party is shown on the face of the contract
• where site plan accompanying sale agreement specifically referenced planned location of dock, owner of dock was third-party 14 beneficiary
• “The third-pdrty beneficiary need not he specifically named in a contract; the dispositive issue is whether the parties’ intention to benefit the third party is shown on the face of the contract.”
• interpreting an identical precursor statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).