Case Study: Third-Party Beneficiary Rights in New York Contract Law

This case study analyzes a New York contract law case involving a homeowner (Xiaoqi) seeking to sue a subcontractor (Jack) for defective work, even though the contract was between the subcontractor and the general contractor (Star). The primary legal issue revolves around whether Xiaoqi qualifies as a third-party beneficiary with the right to sue. The analysis explores the application of New York law to determine if Xiaoqi, as the intended beneficiary of the construction contract, can sue the subcontractor directly, despite the absence of explicit language in the contract. The assignment examines the motion for summary judgment filed by Jack, which, if granted, would dismiss the case on its merits. The case references the precedent of Logan-Baldwin v. LSM Gen. Contrs., Inc., and the owner's lack of direct rights against the subcontractor in the absence of specific contractual provisions. The conclusion of the case depends on whether the court determines that the homeowner's benefit from the contract was intended, allowing her to pursue the breach of contract claim.

assignment
[Document subtitle]

1
Name:
FACTS
Xiaoqi recruited the Star Contractors Inc. as the general contractor in order to construct a house
on a land which is being owned by her in Rochester, New York. The subcontractors of the Star
along with the Plumbing Co. of Jack in order to perform the work of plumbing on the house.
Jack performed the inferior work which causes $50,000 in defects and damages, but Xiaoqi now
wanted to sue Jack and Star for the breach of contract. Further, the Star has already filed for the
protection from the bankruptcy and suing Star would not generate any money. Xiaoqi sued Jack
for the contract of breach affirming that she is the subcontract’s third part beneficiary and this
might give her the right in order to sue the Jack. Further, Jack created a motion for the judgment
of summary to seek a dismissing judgment on the basis of merit. He also argued that Xiaoqi is
not the third party beneficiary and also she doesn’t have any right in order to sue the Jack. It has
been assumed that the written agreement among the Jack and Star didn’t say anything about the
rights of the third party beneficiary. Therefore, Xiaoqi now wants to know that the motion of the
Jack will be denied or granted.
ISSUES THAT ARE TO BE RESEARCHED
The main issue in this particular case stated various different ways like under the law of New
York, in the contract of construction, intended owner of the third-party beneficiary of the
agreement, absence of particular words to that impact. Moreover, under the law of New York,
the general contractor hire the sub-contractor in order to do work and if he fails to perform his
job and the duties according to the contract, the intended owner of the third party beneficiary can
directly sue the sub-contractor.

2
In the given case, Xiaoqi is the intended third party beneficiary.
ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS
1. In what trial court of New York, Xiaoqi’s suit must be filed?
Answer: Supreme Court of the New York
2. What will be the outcome of the motion of Jack for the judgment of summary?
Answer:
a. If the motion is denied, then the case of Xiaoqi will not be dismissed on the basis of merit. b.
If the motion is granted, then the case of Xiaoqi will be dismissed on the basis of the merit.

3
Citation of the case that answers this question:
Logan-Baldwin v LSM Gen. Contrs., Inc. (2011 NY Slip Op 21005)
The owner doesn’t have any right against the sub-contractor, in the lack of clear and
specific words. He is not the done as well as the creditor beneficiary. Further, the benefit
which he would get from the performance would be incidental.