Resinol v. Valentine Dolls, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
“ It is well settled that before a third party can enforce a contract in his favor it must clearly appear that the contract was made and intended for his benefit. * * * The agreement under which the third party claims must clearly express an intention to assume a duty directly to him.” (10 N. Y. Jur., Contracts, § 239, pp. 160, 162.) The written contract here, as we construe it, was not one whereby the appellants Lodmer and Wolf intended to or did assume any obligation directly to the creditors of Bal Dolls, Inc. The contract of the said appellants, upon its face, appears merely to have been…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- French v. . VixNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Skinner Bros. Manufacturing Co. v. Shevlin Engineering Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Skinner Bros. Manufacturing Co. v. Shevlin Engineering Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Leary v. New York Central RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Weinbaum v. Algonquin Gas Transmission Co.New York Supreme Court · 1954
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- American Electric Power Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1976
- Drake v. DrakeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Hylte Bruks Aktiebolag v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Vazman, S. A. v. Fidelity International BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1976
- Falcon Tankers, Inc. v. Litton Systems, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1972
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.