Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Third Party Beneficiaries

9 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Third Party BeneficiariesQuestion 1 of 9

Delgado owed First National Bank $300,000. Delgado hired Mason Works to remodel the office building Delgado owned. The contract stated: "Mason Works shall complete the remodel by July 1 so that Delgado can generate rental income and repay First National Bank." Mason Works finished three months late. Delgado lost rental income and defaulted on the loan. First National sued Mason Works, asserting that it was a third-party beneficiary of the remodeling contract.

Section 2 of the Model Third-Party Beneficiary Act provides: "A person is an intended beneficiary of a contract if the parties manifest an intent that the performance of the promise will be rendered directly to that person or that the person will have a right to enforce the promise. A creditor beneficiary is a person to whom the promisee owes an obligation and to whom the promised performance is to be paid in satisfaction of that obligation. A donee beneficiary is a person to whom the promisee intends to make a gift of the promised performance. A person who receives only an incidental benefit from the contract is not an intended beneficiary."

Is First National Bank an intended beneficiary of the Mason Works–Delgado contract?

Yes, because the contract expressly identified First National Bank and stated that Delgado's purpose in entering the contract was to repay the bank.

Yes, because First National Bank is a creditor beneficiary: Delgado owed it $300,000, and Delgado's obtaining rental income was the bargained-for exchange for Mason Works's promise to perform.

No, because Mason Works's promised performance was the remodel, not a payment to First National Bank; the bank's benefit was only an incidental financial consequence of Delgado's improved ability to repay.

No, because First National Bank did not learn of the contract or rely on it before Mason Works breached, and an intended beneficiary acquires enforceable rights only upon assent or detrimental reliance.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Third Party Beneficiaries

Practice Third Party Beneficiaries in Bar Exam (Next Generation) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Third Party Beneficiaries, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Is First National Bank an intended beneficiary of the Mason Works–Delgado contract?

Yes, because the contract expressly identified First National Bank and stated that Delgado's purpose in entering the contract was to repay the bank.
Yes, because First National Bank is a creditor beneficiary: Delgado owed it $300,000, and Delgado's obtaining rental income was the bargained-for exchange for Mason Works's promise to perform.
No, because Mason Works's promised performance was the remodel, not a payment to First National Bank; the bank's benefit was only an incidental financial consequence of Delgado's improved ability to repay. (correct answer)
No, because First National Bank did not learn of the contract or rely on it before Mason Works breached, and an intended beneficiary acquires enforceable rights only upon assent or detrimental reliance.

Explanation: Whenever you see a third-party beneficiary question, start with intent: did the contracting parties intend to give the third party a direct right to the promised performance, or was the third party's benefit merely a foreseeable side effect? The Model Act requires that the parties intend either that performance be rendered directly to the person or that the person have a right to enforce the promise. Here, Mason Works promised to remodel Delgado's building. That performance was rendered to Delgado, not to First National Bank. The contract mentioned the bank only to explain Delgado's purpose—earning rental income to repay the loan. That makes the bank a classic incidental beneficiary: the bank benefited financially from Delgado's improved ability to pay, but Mason Works never promised to pay the bank anything. The "expressly identified" argument is not enough: naming the bank and stating Delgado's motive does not show an intent to benefit the bank directly. The "creditor beneficiary" argument also fails because a creditor beneficiary exists only when the promised performance is to be paid directly to the creditor in satisfaction of the debt; rental income is not the promised performance, and Mason's bargained-for exchange was Delgado's payment, not Delgado's rental income. The "no knowledge or reliance" argument reaches the right result for the wrong reason: intended beneficiary status is determined at formation, while reliance or assent affects when rights vest, not whether the bank was intended. Study tip: ask, "Whom did the promisor promise to pay or perform for?" If the answer is the promisee, the third party is likely incidental.

Question 2

Dawson owed First Bank $100,000 under a loan agreement. Dawson and Pratt entered into a contract under which Pratt promised to pay First Bank the $100,000 and Dawson promised to transfer a crane to Pratt. Pratt later discovered that Dawson had knowingly misrepresented that the crane was unencumbered; the crane was subject to a prior lien. Pratt refused to pay First Bank. Pratt also holds an unrelated $15,000 judgment against First Bank and wants to reduce any payment. First Bank sued Pratt to enforce the promise.

Section 6 of the Model Third-Party Beneficiary Act provides: "In an action by a beneficiary, the promisor may assert any defense that the promisor could assert against the promisee. If the beneficiary is a creditor beneficiary, the promisor may also assert any defense that the promisor could assert against the beneficiary on the same obligation. The promisor may not assert a defense, setoff, or counterclaim arising from a separate transaction between the promisor and the beneficiary."

Which statement is most accurate?

Pratt may refuse to pay First Bank because Dawson's misrepresentation is a defense available to Pratt on the contract with Dawson, but Pratt may not offset the unrelated judgment against First Bank. (correct answer)
Pratt may refuse to pay and may offset the unrelated judgment, because a creditor beneficiary stands in the position of the promisee and the promisor may assert every defense and setoff the promisor has against either party.
Pratt may not refuse to pay because First Bank is an innocent creditor beneficiary and the misrepresentation by Dawson is a matter solely between Dawson and Pratt.
Pratt must pay First Bank and then seek rescission from Dawson, because a beneficiary's rights become irrevocable when the beneficiary learns of the contract.

Explanation: Whenever you see a third-party beneficiary question, identify the roles first: Dawson is the promisee, Pratt is the promisor, and First Bank is a creditor beneficiary because the promised payment would satisfy Dawson's debt. The statute lets Pratt assert any defense he could assert against Dawson, plus defenses against First Bank on the same obligation, but it bars setoffs from separate transactions. Here, Pratt's misrepresentation defense arises from the Pratt-Dawson contract: Dawson knowingly lied about the crane being unencumbered. If Dawson sued Pratt, Pratt could use that fraud to avoid the contract. Because a beneficiary generally steps into the promisee's shoes, Pratt may assert that same defense against First Bank. So Pratt may refuse to pay. The unrelated $15,000 judgment is different. It is a setoff arising from a separate transaction between Pratt and First Bank, not from the Dawson debt, and the statute explicitly forbids using it. Thus Pratt cannot reduce payment. The choice saying Pratt may both refuse and offset misstates the rule: a creditor beneficiary does not expose the promisor to every defense and setoff against either party. The choice saying Pratt may not refuse because First Bank is an innocent beneficiary is wrong because the statute allows promisee defenses even against an innocent beneficiary. The choice saying Pratt must pay and then seek rescission is wrong because a beneficiary's vested rights are still subject to the promisor's defenses. Study tip: on third-party beneficiary questions, separate same-contract defenses from separate-transaction setoffs—the statute allows one and forbids the other.

Question 3

Triton Construction hired Ajax Engineering under a written contract to design a commercial roof. The contract stated: "Triton retains all rights to enforce Ajax's performance and may modify or terminate this agreement without notice. Triton and Ajax intend that Ajax's design obligations shall directly benefit Skyline Properties, the building owner." After Ajax completed the design but before Triton paid Ajax, Triton and Ajax amended the contract to reduce Ajax's fee by 15% and to excuse Ajax from any liability for design defects. Skyline later discovered roof defects caused by Ajax's negligent design and sued Ajax as a third-party beneficiary of the original contract.

Section 9 of the Design Services Act provides:

"(a) A person who is not a party to a contract may enforce a contractual promise only if the contracting parties intended to give that person the benefit of the promised performance and the person's right to enforce has vested.

(b) A third-party beneficiary's right vests when the beneficiary, with knowledge of the contract: (1) expressly or impliedly manifests assent to the contract in a manner invited or requested by the parties; (2) brings suit to enforce the contract; or (3) materially changes position in justifiable reliance on the contract.

(c) Before a beneficiary's right vests, the contracting parties may modify or terminate the contract without the beneficiary's consent. After vesting, a modification or termination that destroys or impairs the beneficiary's right is ineffective without the beneficiary's consent."

If Skyline had not taken any action with respect to the Triton-Ajax contract before the amendment, may Skyline now enforce Ajax's original design obligations?

Yes, because Skyline was an intended beneficiary and the contracting parties could not excuse Ajax's liability to Skyline without Skyline's consent
No, because Skyline never assented, sued, or relied on the contract before the amendment, so its rights had not vested and the parties could modify the contract (correct answer)
Yes, because Skyline's mere status as an intended beneficiary vested its rights immediately upon execution of the original contract
No, because Ajax's promise was made to Triton, not to Skyline, and third-party beneficiaries may enforce only promises expressly naming them

Explanation: When you see a third-party beneficiary question, the first thing to check is whether the beneficiary's right has vested. Under Section 9, vesting occurs only through one of three actions: assent, suit, or detrimental reliance. Skyline did none before the amendment, so its rights never vested. Therefore, under subsection (c), Triton and Ajax were free to modify or terminate the contract without Skyline's consent. That modification—reducing the fee and excusing Ajax from defect liability—now governs, and Skyline cannot enforce the original design obligations. The correct answer is the one stating that Skyline never assented, sued, or relied, so the parties could modify the contract. Now examine the traps. The choice saying "Yes, because Skyline was an intended beneficiary and the parties could not excuse Ajax's liability" wrongly assumes that intended beneficiary status alone blocks modification—but the statute explicitly permits modification before vesting. The choice saying "Yes, because Skyline's mere status vested its rights immediately" confuses intent with vesting; intent creates the benefit, but vesting requires action. The choice saying "No, because Ajax's promise was made to Triton, not Skyline" misstates third-party law—intended beneficiaries need not be named, and the contract clearly shows intent to benefit Skyline. Finally, any answer that ignores the timing of vesting misses the statutory hook. Strategy: On the bar exam, when a statute defines vesting, list the trigger events immediately. If the beneficiary hasn't taken any listed action before a modification, the modification is effective—even if the beneficiary was clearly intended to benefit.

Question 4

A city entered into a contract with a construction company to build a new bridge. The contract stated that the bridge was to be completed within two years and that the project was intended to 'reduce traffic congestion and improve access to the downtown area.' The bridge was not completed on time, and a commuter who used the old bridge daily sued the construction company for the additional commuting costs caused by the delay.

Which of the following is the most significant legal issue raised by the commuter's claim?

Whether the commuter is an intended or merely an incidental beneficiary of the contract between the city and the construction company. (correct answer)
Whether the construction company's failure to complete the bridge on time was a breach of its contract with the city.
Whether the construction company's delay in completing the bridge created a public nuisance for which the commuter may seek damages.
Whether the commuter's daily use of the old bridge was foreseeable reliance sufficient to make the commuter a third-party beneficiary.

Explanation: When a non-party sues to enforce someone else's contract, the threshold question is always third-party beneficiary doctrine: did the contracting parties intend to benefit this person, or was any benefit merely incidental? Here, the commuter claims harm from the delay in building the bridge, but the contract only describes a public goal—reducing congestion and improving access. That language shows the city and construction company intended to benefit the public generally, not to create enforceable rights for any particular commuter. Thus the most significant issue is whether the commuter is an intended or merely an incidental beneficiary; because the benefit is general and governmental, the commuter is likely incidental and cannot sue. The breach-of-contract option misses the standing problem. Even if the construction company breached, only the city—or an intended beneficiary—can enforce that breach. The commuter must first show a right to sue. The public nuisance option is a different legal theory, not the contract-based issue raised by the claim; it focuses on unreasonable interference with public rights, not on whether the commuter can enforce the city's contract. Finally, the commuter's daily use and foreseeable reliance are the wrong test: third-party beneficiary status depends on the contracting parties' intent to benefit the claimant, not on foreseeability or reliance. Those factors might support promissory estoppel, but they do not create beneficiary standing. Study tip: whenever a non-party sues on a contract, immediately ask "intended or incidental?" Public works contracts generally benefit the public incidentally, so individual citizens rarely have standing to sue for delays.

Question 5

A manufacturer entered a written supply agreement with a distributor. The agreement stated that the manufacturer would ship units directly to a retail chain 'for the chain's benefit' and that 'the retail chain is an intended beneficiary of this agreement, but only the distributor may enforce the terms of this agreement.' When the manufacturer stopped shipping, the retail chain sued the manufacturer for lost profits.

Which of the following is the most significant legal issue raised by the retail chain's claim?

Whether the clause providing that only the distributor may enforce the agreement prevents the retail chain, despite being named an intended beneficiary, from suing the manufacturer. (correct answer)
Whether the distributor's failure to place the required monthly orders excused the manufacturer's duty to continue shipping units directly to the retail chain under the supply agreement.
Whether the retail chain's designation as an intended beneficiary in the supply agreement had the effect of making the retail chain a party to that agreement with the manufacturer.
Whether the retail chain's substantial reliance on the manufacturer's promised shipments, even though the retail chain was not a party to the agreement, is sufficient to support a promissory estoppel claim against the manufacturer.

Explanation: Whenever you see a named third party trying to enforce a contract, ask first: does this party have beneficiary status, and does the contract actually give it the right to sue? An intended beneficiary can usually enforce a promise made for its benefit, but the contracting parties are free to limit or condition that enforcement right. Here, the agreement names the retail chain as an intended beneficiary, but then says only the distributor may enforce its terms. That limitation is the most significant issue because it directly determines whether the chain has standing to sue for lost profits. If the clause is valid, the chain cannot recover as a beneficiary; if it is unenforceable or ambiguous, the chain might. The distributor's failure to place required monthly orders, if proven, could affect whether the manufacturer breached, but that is a factual defense about performance, not the central issue raised by the chain's claim. The retail chain's designation as an intended beneficiary does not make it a party to the agreement; a beneficiary gains rights without becoming a contracting party. Finally, while the chain's substantial reliance on promised shipments could support a promissory estoppel theory, the chain is not actually asserting estoppel here—it is suing for lost profits as an intended beneficiary—so that issue is secondary. Study tip: on third-party beneficiary questions, separate "status" from "enforcement." A contract may confer a benefit while still withholding the power to sue, so always read any enforcement-limitation clause carefully.

Question 6

Delia owed Oscar $40,000 from a former partnership buyout. Delia sold her delivery business to Nadia. In the sale agreement, Nadia expressly agreed to 'pay the $40,000 debt owed by Delia to Oscar directly to Oscar, in monthly installments.' Oscar learned of the agreement and accepted the first installment. Nadia later withheld the remaining payments, claiming Delia had fraudulently misrepresented the business's revenue during the sale negotiations. Oscar sued Nadia for the unpaid installments.

Assume a court has determined that Oscar is an intended third-party beneficiary. Which of the following is the most significant remaining legal issue raised by these facts?

Whether Oscar's rights as a creditor beneficiary are subordinate to Nadia's rights as the buyer of the business.
Whether Nadia may assert against Oscar the fraud defenses she would have against Delia under the sale agreement. (correct answer)
Whether Oscar's acceptance of the first installment converted his beneficiary status into an assignment of Delia's rights.
Whether Nadia's promise to pay Oscar required new consideration from Oscar in order to be enforceable.

Explanation: Whenever you see a third-party beneficiary question, anchor yourself in the underlying contract. The beneficiary's rights are derivative: Oscar stands in Delia's shoes. So when Delia and Nadia made their sale agreement, any defense Nadia could raise against Delia is generally available against Oscar, because Oscar's right to payment comes from that agreement. Here, the most significant remaining issue is whether Nadia may assert against Oscar the fraud defenses she would have against Delia under the sale agreement. Nadia claims Delia fraudulently misrepresented the business's revenue, which goes to the validity or performance of the contract that created Oscar's rights. Since Oscar is a creditor beneficiary, his rights are subject to the contract's defenses, and this fraud allegation is the pivotal fight left in the case. The other choices do not hold up. The claim that Oscar's rights as a creditor beneficiary are subordinate to Nadia's rights as buyer misunderstands the relationship—there is no priority contest between them; Nadia simply must perform her contractual promise, subject to defenses. The idea that Oscar's acceptance of the first installment converted his status into an assignment of Delia's rights is wrong: accepting an installment shows reliance and assent, but it does not trigger an assignment, which requires a separate transfer of rights by Delia. Finally, the question of whether Nadia's promise to pay Oscar required new consideration from Oscar misses the point—consideration flowed from Delia to Nadia in the sale agreement, and a third-party beneficiary need not give consideration to enforce a promise made for the beneficiary's benefit. Study tip: for third-party beneficiary problems, always ask two questions—who are the original contracting parties, and what defenses exist between them—because the beneficiary inherits both the rights and the contract's defenses.

Question 7

State Housing Authority contracted with Lakeside Builders to construct affordable housing. The contract stated: "Lakeside shall rent at least 40 of the units to qualifying veterans at reduced rents. This covenant is for the benefit of qualifying veterans and furthers the State's housing policy. The Authority may seek specific performance of this covenant." The contract did not state that veterans could sue to enforce it. A qualifying veteran applied for a reduced-rent unit, was rejected, and sued Lakeside.

The court in Carter v. State Housing Finance Corp. held: "A contract made by a governmental body for a public purpose does not make every person who will benefit from its performance a third-party beneficiary. The contract must contain a clear manifestation that the contracting parties intended to give the particular person or class a right to enforce the promised performance. A general recital that the project is for the benefit of the community, or for the benefit of a class, is not enough."

Can the veteran enforce the covenant?

Yes, because the covenant was expressly made for the benefit of a specifically identified class, and a member of an intended class may enforce a government contract.
Yes, because veterans are the direct and intended recipients of the promised reduced-rent units, so the veteran has a right to performance without regard to an explicit enforcement clause.
No, because a contract made by a governmental body cannot create enforceable rights in third parties unless a statute expressly creates such a right.
No, because the contract did not clearly manifest an intent to give veterans a right to enforce the covenant; the beneficial language and the Authority's explicit enforcement right point the other way. (correct answer)

Explanation: Whenever you see a government contract and a private citizen trying to enforce it, the central issue is almost always third-party beneficiary intent. The hurdle is high: a general statement that a project benefits a community or class is not enough. The contract must show a "clear manifestation" that the parties intended the specific person to have a right to sue. Here, the covenant names "qualifying veterans" as its intended beneficiaries, which seems promising. However, the key is not just who benefits, but who gets the power to enforce. The contract explicitly grants enforcement power to the Authority alone, and notably, it says nothing about veterans being able to sue. This silence, combined with the explicit grant to the Authority, signals that the parties intended the Authority to be the sole enforcer. The passage from Carter reinforces this: beneficial language alone is insufficient. Therefore, the veteran cannot enforce the covenant. The first wrong choice—that the covenant was for a "specifically identified class" and that is enough—misreads the Carter rule, which explicitly rejects that a class benefit alone creates enforcement rights. The second wrong choice, that the veteran is a "direct and intended recipient" with a right to performance "without regard to an explicit enforcement clause," falls into the same trap; direct benefit does not equal a right to sue. The third wrong choice, stating that government contracts can never create third-party rights without a statute, is too absolute—the correct rule allows such rights when the contract clearly manifests intent to grant them, which is simply not present here. For your study, remember this pattern: on the bar exam, look for an explicit enforcement clause or language like "intended for the benefit of" combined with a direct grant of a right to sue. If the contract names a specific enforcer, that is a strong signal that everyone else is merely an incidental beneficiary.

Question 8

Barnes owed Chen $100,000, due in six months. Barnes and SuretyCo entered into a paid contract in which SuretyCo promised to pay Chen $100,000 on the due date. Barnes showed Chen the contract. Relying on that promise, Chen released the security interest Barnes had given Chen in Barnes's equipment and did not demand earlier payment. Before the due date, Barnes and SuretyCo rescinded the contract and notified Chen. Chen sued SuretyCo.

Section 4 of the Model Third-Party Beneficiary Act provides: "The rights of an intended beneficiary vest when the beneficiary, with knowledge of the contract and its terms, either (1) manifests assent to it in the manner invited or requested by the parties, (2) brings suit to enforce it, or (3) materially changes position in justifiable reliance on it. After the beneficiary's rights have vested, the promisor and promisee may not rescind or modify the contract without the beneficiary's consent."

Who is likely to prevail?

SuretyCo, because Chen did not bring suit or manifest assent before the rescission, and the contract was rescinded before the payment date.
SuretyCo, because a third-party beneficiary's right does not vest until the promised payment is due, and the rescission occurred before that date.
Chen, because Chen was an intended creditor beneficiary and, as such, acquired a vested right immediately when Barnes and SuretyCo executed the contract.
Chen, because Chen released the security interest in justifiable reliance on the promise after learning of the contract, and the later rescission without Chen's consent was ineffective. (correct answer)

Explanation: Whenever you see a third-party beneficiary question involving modification or rescission, focus on whether the beneficiary's rights have vested before the change occurred. Under the Model Third-Party Beneficiary Act, vesting happens not merely by being named, but by an act: assent, filing suit, or materially changing position in justifiable reliance on the promise. Here, Chen had knowledge of the SuretyCo contract and then released the security interest in the equipment and did not demand earlier payment. That is exactly the kind of detrimental reliance that vests Chen's rights. Therefore, once Barnes and SuretyCo attempted to rescind without Chen's consent, the rescission was ineffective. Chen prevails. The choice saying Chen wins because he was an intended creditor beneficiary who acquired a vested right immediately upon execution goes too far: the statute requires one of the three vesting events, not automatic vesting at formation. Likewise, the choice claiming SuretyCo wins because Chen did not sue or assent ignores Chen's material reliance. And the choice asserting rights do not vest until the payment date is directly contradicted by the statute, which allows earlier vesting through reliance, suit, or assent. Your takeaway: in third-party beneficiary rescission questions, do not assume timing from the due date or from status alone. Ask what the beneficiary actually did after learning of the promise. Detrimental reliance is often the decisive vesting trigger—and once it occurs, the original contract cannot be undone without that beneficiary's consent.

Question 9

Rosa signed a tuition agreement with Crestwood Academy under which Rosa agreed to pay all tuition and costs for her granddaughter, Maya. The agreement stated that Maya would be enrolled as a full-time student for four years. Maya read the agreement, enrolled, and, in reliance on the funding, declined a paid internship and accepted a lower-paying job compatible with class schedule. After two years, Rosa and Crestwood modified the agreement to end Rosa's payment obligations, and Crestwood refused to enroll Maya the following year. Maya sued Crestwood to enforce the original agreement.

Which of the following is the most significant legal issue raised by these facts?

Whether Maya's rights as an intended third-party beneficiary had vested before Rosa and Crestwood modified the agreement. (correct answer)
Whether Maya provided consideration to Rosa for Rosa's promise to pay her tuition.
Whether Rosa's original agreement with Crestwood contained a provision allowing modification without Maya's consent.
Whether Crestwood's modification agreement with Rosa was supported by new consideration.

Explanation: Whenever you see a contract modification that hurts someone who was not a party to the original deal, stop and ask: "Had the third party's rights already vested?" That is the central issue here. Maya was almost certainly an intended third-party beneficiary of Rosa's agreement with Crestwood; the agreement was made specifically to pay Maya's tuition. A beneficiary's rights vest when the beneficiary learns of the promise and, in reliance on it, materially changes position. Maya registered, declined a paid internship, and accepted lower-paying work — classic detrimental reliance. Once her rights vested, Rosa and Crestwood could not modify the original agreement to strip her of those rights without her consent. So the most significant issue is whether Maya's rights had vested before the modification. As for "whether Maya provided consideration to Rosa," consideration is irrelevant for Maya: third-party beneficiaries enforce a contract made for their benefit without giving consideration themselves. The choice about "whether the original agreement contained a provision allowing modification" misses the point: even an express modification clause normally cannot extinguish a beneficiary's vested rights after reliance, and there are no facts suggesting such a clause existed here. Finally, "whether Crestwood's modification agreement with Rosa was supported by new consideration" confuses the enforceability of the modification between Rosa and Crestwood with its effect on Maya; even a supported modification cannot override Maya's already-vested rights. Exam takeaway: when third-party beneficiary issues appear, search the facts for "reliance" — that word marks vesting and makes later modifications ineffective against the beneficiary.