Hello.
I just ran into the following multiple choice in Wiley Test Bank:
QUESTION:
Nancy is asserting rights as a third-party donee beneficiary on a contract made by Johnson and Harding. In order to prevail, Nancy must prove that:
1) She gave consideration for the donative promise.
2) She is related by blood or marriage to the promisee.
3) The terms of the contract and surrounding circumstances manifest a clear intent to benefit her.
4) She is specifically named in the contract.
ANSWER:
3) The terms of the contract and surrounding circumstances manifest a clear intent to benefit her.
Had it said "...to benefit her only." or "...her specifically." I feel that it could be valid, however, the way it stands the Wiley answer seems readily applicable to an incidental beneficiary and a little too vague to apply to an intended beneficiary. It seems that being "specifically named in the contract" is the more correct answer. Becker states that "At a minimum, the third party must be named or specifically described in the contract."
Does anyone else think that this question is poorly worded and could potentially go either way, or is my thinking off?
Thank you!