ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 16
THIRD PARTY RIGHTS
16-1A. Third party beneficiary
(Chapter 16—Pages 311–313)
16-2A. Assignment
(Chapter 16—Pages 310–311)
No. The judgment for the bank was affirmed. The court quoted the rule of the Restatement (Second) of
Contracts, Section 328(1), which states: “Unless the language or the circumstances indicate to the
16-3A. Assignment
(Chapter 16—Page 308)
B-68 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 16
almost exactly like the one in this case. In regard to Petry’s claim that the contract was unassignable,
16-4A. Assignment
(Chapter 16—Page 308)
16-5A. Assignment
(Chapter 16—Page 308)
16-6A. Assignment
(Chapter 16—Pages 307 & 308)
16-7A. Third party beneficiary
(Chapter 16—Pages 311–313)
The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss the other plaintiffs. The other investors argued in
part that they were intended third-party beneficiaries of the contract. The court recognized that “a third
16-8A. Assignment
(Chapter 16—Pages 307 & 308)
The Scotts were entitled to specific performance. The contract originally entered into by Canfield and
16-9A. Assignment
(Chapter 16—Page 307)
The Vermont Supreme Court held that the regulation was invalid. The court pointed out that, unlike
some other states’ lottery statutes, Vermont’s statute did not prohibit assignments of winnings: the
16-10A. Notice of assignment
(Chapter 16—Page 308)
The court granted a summary judgment in favor of American Factors, and the county appealed to a state
B-70 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 16
of the assignment, therefore, was received by the county.” As for the county’s being required to pay