Hilliker Corp. v. Watson Prop.

1 Citing case

  1. Bell v. Arise Virtual Sols.

    4:21-cv-00538-RK (W.D. Mo. Feb. 24, 2022)   Cited 2 times
    Adopting the categorical rule from Reyna and collecting cases

    Rather, “[a] party claiming rights as a third-party beneficiary has the burden of showing that provisions in the contract were intended for [its] direct benefit” because third-party “contract rights are only enforceable if the promisor assumed a direct obligation to the third-party beneficiary.” Hilliker Corp. v. Watson Prop., LLC, __ S.W.3d __, 2022 WL 97284, at *2 (Mo.Ct.App. Jan. 11, 2022) (slip op.) (citing Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. G. III Invs., Ltd., 761 S.W.2d 201, 204 (Mo.Ct.App. 1988); see L.A.C., 75 S.W.3d at 260. Status as a third-party beneficiary requires more than simply a “desire or purpose” that a third-party benefit from the contract.