Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union v. Fifth Third Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an unjust enrichment claim failed because the plaintiff was “fulfilling its own [contractual] obligations.”
• applying Pennsylvania law that is identical to Massachusetts law
• “While section 302 recognizes that a nonsignatory to a contract can be an intended beneficiary of the contract if certain conditions are met, it recognizes the right of the contracting parties to exclude third parties from invoking the benefits of their agreement.”
• “While section 302 recognizes that a nonsignatory to a contract can be an intended beneficiary of the contract if certain conditions are met, it recognizes the right of the contracting parties to exclude third parties from invoking the benefits of their agreement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).