Emmelyn Logan-Baldwin and other owners (Logan-Baldwin) contracted with L. S.M. General Contractors, Inc. (LSM) to conduct renovations on their historic residence. LSM subcontracted with Henry Isaacs Home Remodeling and Repair (Isaacs) to perform the roofing work on the project. Isaacs in turn subcontracted with Hal Brewster Home Improvements (Brewster), to conduct the roofing work on Isaacs' behalf. When Brewster performed work on the roof, he "botched the job" and caused extensive leaking inside the house. LSM and Issacs attempted to correct the problems, but eventually abandoned the project, leaving Logan-Baldwin to hire others to complete the renovations. Logan-Baldwin sued LSM, Isaacs, and Baldwin for breach of contract. Isaacs sought to dismiss Logan-Baldwin's claim against it, arguing no privity of contract existed between themselves and Logan-Baldwin, and therefore Isaacs should not be liable for any damages. 1. The principle that one who is not a direct party to a particular contract normally does not have rights under that contract is known as.
2. LSMhave privity of contract with Logan-Baldwin, while Isaacs___have privity of contract with Logan-Baldwin.
3. An exception to the doctrine of privity of contract arises when a contract is intended to benefit aparty.
4. This case primarily deals with___.
5. is the promisor in this case.
6. is the promisee.
7. is the third party.
8. A third party that is considered an intended beneficiary to a contractsue the promisor for breach of contract.
9. A third party that is considered an incidental beneficiary to a contractsue the promisor for breach of contract.
10. In determining whether a beneficiary is an intended or incidental beneficiary, the presence of one or more of the following factors strongly indicates that the third party is an intended beneficiary to the contract: whether performance is renderedto the third party, if the third party has a right to, and if the third party is.
11. Was Isaacs’ performance directly to Logan-Baldwin?
12. Did Logan-Baldwin have the right to control the details of Isaacs’ performance?
13. Did Logan-Baldwin expressly appear as a beneficiary in the contract?
14. Although a factor to be considered an intended beneficiary under the contract, the name "Logan-Baldwin"expressly appear in the terms of the contract.
15. As a result of performance being rendered directly to Logan-Baldwin, and Logan-Baldwin's right to control the details of performance, Logan-Baldwin will likely be considered anbeneficiary.
16. As an intended beneficiary, Logan-Baldwinsue to enforce the contract.
17. Is it likely that the court would have ruled in favor of Logan-Baldwin?