Prouty v. Gores Technology Group

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that where two companies included a specific provision granting rights to one company’s employees that “expressly benefit[ted] them, and only them,” this specific provision was an exception to the contract’s general no-third-party beneficiaries provision
• “The test for determining whether a contract was made for the benefit of a third person is whether an intent to benefit a third person appears from the terms of the contract.”
• specific words govern only \when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent\
• “If the terms of the contract necessarily require the promisor to confer a benefit on a third person, then the contract, and hence the parties thereto, contemplate a benefit to the third person.” (citation omitted)
• “If the terms of the contract necessarily require the promisor to confer a benefit on a third person, then the contract ... may be enforced by him at any time before the parties thereto rescind it.”
• “Whether the third party is an intended beneficiary or merely an incidental beneficiary involves construction of the intention of the parties, gathered from reading the contract as a whole in light of the circumstances under which it was entered.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).