Noller v. GMC Truck & Coach Division

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that only intended beneficiaries may sue for breach of contract
• adopting the definition of intentional interference with prospective contractual relations contained in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766B
• reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision, which relied on extrinsic evidence of the parties intent, because the contract contained “no expression of an intent to benefit a third party”
• manufacturer who agreed with franchisee not to withhold consent arbitrarily had no duty to prospective purchaser who was merely an incidental beneficiary of the agreement
• intent of parties to benefit third-party is to be determined from instrument where terms are plain and unambiguous
• “Knowledge that a contract will benefit a third party is not intent to benefit the third party.” (emphasis in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).