Chat with AI
Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law 9th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller
Edition 9ISBN: 978-1111530624Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law 9th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller
Edition 9ISBN: 978-1111530624 Exercise 22
Allan v.Nersesova
Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, 307 S.W.3d 564 (2010).
www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us
FACTS Autumn Allan and Aslan Koraev both owned units in the Boardwalk on the Parkway Condominiums. Allan's unit was directly beneath Koraev's. Between March 2005 and July 2007, Allan's unit suffered eight incidents of water and sewage incursion as a result of plumbing problems and misuse of appliances in Koraev's unit. Allan sued Koraev and others for breach of contract. The trial jury found for Allan on her claims for breach of contract against Koraev. Koraev moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asserting that Allan had failed to prove as a matter of law the existence of a contract between her and Koraev. The trial court granted the motion, and Allan appealed.
ISSUE Was Allan an intended third party beneficiary of the contract between Koraev and the condominium association?
DECISION Yes. The Court of Appeals of Texas concluded that the governing documents made Allan an intended creditor beneficiary of the contract between Koraev and the association.
REASON Allan was a creditor beneficiary because she benefited from Koraev's contractual promises to comply with the condominium association's terms and to pay for damages that he caused to other units. Consequently, the trial court "erred by granting Koraev's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Allan's claim for breach of contract." The court reasoned that "A third party, such as Allan, may sue to enforce a contract as a third-party beneficiary... if the contracting parties entered into the contract directly and primarily for the third-party's benefit." Because the governing documents stated that each owner had to comply strictly with their provisions, failure to comply created grounds for an action by the condominium association or an aggrieved (wronged) owner. Clearly, Allan was an aggrieved owner. "Koraev's failure to perform the contract between himself and the Association was a breach of his duty not to cause damage to Allan's unit. As an intended creditor beneficiary, Allan had standing to bring suit against Koraev for his breach of the governing documents."
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS-Legal Consideration Why did the court use the term creditor beneficiary to describe Allan?
Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, 307 S.W.3d 564 (2010).
www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us
FACTS Autumn Allan and Aslan Koraev both owned units in the Boardwalk on the Parkway Condominiums. Allan's unit was directly beneath Koraev's. Between March 2005 and July 2007, Allan's unit suffered eight incidents of water and sewage incursion as a result of plumbing problems and misuse of appliances in Koraev's unit. Allan sued Koraev and others for breach of contract. The trial jury found for Allan on her claims for breach of contract against Koraev. Koraev moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asserting that Allan had failed to prove as a matter of law the existence of a contract between her and Koraev. The trial court granted the motion, and Allan appealed.
ISSUE Was Allan an intended third party beneficiary of the contract between Koraev and the condominium association?
DECISION Yes. The Court of Appeals of Texas concluded that the governing documents made Allan an intended creditor beneficiary of the contract between Koraev and the association.
REASON Allan was a creditor beneficiary because she benefited from Koraev's contractual promises to comply with the condominium association's terms and to pay for damages that he caused to other units. Consequently, the trial court "erred by granting Koraev's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Allan's claim for breach of contract." The court reasoned that "A third party, such as Allan, may sue to enforce a contract as a third-party beneficiary... if the contracting parties entered into the contract directly and primarily for the third-party's benefit." Because the governing documents stated that each owner had to comply strictly with their provisions, failure to comply created grounds for an action by the condominium association or an aggrieved (wronged) owner. Clearly, Allan was an aggrieved owner. "Koraev's failure to perform the contract between himself and the Association was a breach of his duty not to cause damage to Allan's unit. As an intended creditor beneficiary, Allan had standing to bring suit against Koraev for his breach of the governing documents."
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS-Legal Consideration Why did the court use the term creditor beneficiary to describe Allan?
Explanation
Verified
Verified
Third Party Beneficiary:
In a contract,...
Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law 9th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller
Why don’t you like this exercise?
Other Minimum 8 character and maximum 255 character
Character 255
