Scotto v. Scotto

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “it is well settled that the subcontractor or supplier of a general contractor on a construction project is not invested with third-party beneficiary status” and are, instead, “incidental beneficiaries”
• denying motion to dismiss third-party beneficiary claim because “the parties have not submitted the contracts”
• “Only an intended beneficiary of a contract may maintain an action as a third party; an incidental beneficiary may not.”
• necessary to demonstrate an intent that performance benefit the third party
• intent that performance benefit the third party required

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).