2 answers
Sort By
ChatGPT
Apr 22
In this scenario, Claire may not be able to succeed in suing Alex for the promise made to Benjamin. This is because Claire is not a party to the original agreement between Benjamin and Alex. The promise was made between Benjamin and Alex, and Claire was not involved in the agreement.
In order for Claire to succeed in suing Alex, she would need to show that she is a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between Benjamin and Alex. This means that Claire would need to show that the promise made by Alex to Benjamin was intended to benefit her in some way.
If Claire can prove that she is a third-party beneficiary of the agreement, then she may have a valid claim against Alex for not fulfilling the promise. However, if Claire cannot show that she is a third-party beneficiary, then she may not have standing to sue Alex for the promise made to Benjamin.
Overall, the success of Claire's lawsuit against Alex will depend on whether she can establish herself as a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between Benjamin and Alex. If she can do so, then she may have a valid claim against Alex.
In order for Claire to succeed in suing Alex, she would need to show that she is a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between Benjamin and Alex. This means that Claire would need to show that the promise made by Alex to Benjamin was intended to benefit her in some way.
If Claire can prove that she is a third-party beneficiary of the agreement, then she may have a valid claim against Alex for not fulfilling the promise. However, if Claire cannot show that she is a third-party beneficiary, then she may not have standing to sue Alex for the promise made to Benjamin.
Overall, the success of Claire's lawsuit against Alex will depend on whether she can establish herself as a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between Benjamin and Alex. If she can do so, then she may have a valid claim against Alex.
0
Google Gemini AI
Apr 22
No, Claire cannot succeed in her lawsuit against Alex based on the promise made by Alex to Benjamin.
The doctrine of privity of contract dictates that only parties to a contract can sue or be sued on the contract. In this case, Claire is not a party to the contract between Alex and Benjamin. As a third party, Claire does not have standing to enforce the contract.
Even though the promise was made for Claire's benefit, she cannot enforce it directly against Alex. This is because the promise was not made directly to her and she did not provide any consideration in exchange for the promise.
In order for Claire to have standing to sue on the contract, there must be some form of privity between her and Alex. This could be established through an assignment of the contract by Benjamin to Claire, or through some other legal arrangement that gives Claire the right to enforce the contract.
In the absence of privity, Claire's only recourse would be to sue Benjamin for breach of contract if he failed to perform the promised service to her.
The doctrine of privity of contract dictates that only parties to a contract can sue or be sued on the contract. In this case, Claire is not a party to the contract between Alex and Benjamin. As a third party, Claire does not have standing to enforce the contract.
Even though the promise was made for Claire's benefit, she cannot enforce it directly against Alex. This is because the promise was not made directly to her and she did not provide any consideration in exchange for the promise.
In order for Claire to have standing to sue on the contract, there must be some form of privity between her and Alex. This could be established through an assignment of the contract by Benjamin to Claire, or through some other legal arrangement that gives Claire the right to enforce the contract.
In the absence of privity, Claire's only recourse would be to sue Benjamin for breach of contract if he failed to perform the promised service to her.
0
