Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 17 - Rights of Third Parties
V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS AND PROBLEM CASES
1. Yes. Even though Schauer’s ex-husband did not assign the ring to her, he nevertheless
made the contract with Mandarin Gems for the “sole and stated purpose” of giving
2. No. The defendants were not parties to the release, but were claiming rights under it
as third-party beneficiaries. The release made no mention of the defendants. The court
3. Yes. The court decided that it was assignable because to hold otherwise would exalt
4. No. The Rosenberg’s consent to the initial assignment and acquiescence in
the second was not a novation. Alteration of the underlying obligation after Pratt
5. No. The assignee merely “stands in the shoes of the assignor,” and any defense that
could be asserted against an assignor can be asserted against an assignee. In this case,
6. Yes. Locke sought recovery as a third party beneficiary of the contract requiring
adequate police protection. The court stated that “it has long been the rule in Alabama
that one who seeks recovery as a third-party beneficiary of a contract must establish
7. No. This would require that the client’s sole purpose be to benefit the third party.
Here, there was no evidence that Heine ever intended to benefit Francis. In fact,
17-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution
in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 17 - Rights of Third Parties
8. No. The court held that Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) claims are not
assignable. The DTPA limits its coverage to consumers, and excludes claims by
certain businesses. If DTPA claims could be assigned, that would run counter to the
statute because some people who were deemed ineligible by the legislature would be
9. Yes. The educational support provision of the settlement was expressly made for the
purpose of benefiting Jessica, so she is an intended third party beneficiary. In a related
question, Jessica’s father maintained that as a third-party beneficiary, Jessica’s
remedy was to file a breach of contract suit against him and that she did not have
10. No. The mere fact that rights are assigned does not mean that the assignee has
assumed the duties of the assignor. Simpson did not agree to assume MW’s
17-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution
in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
