Grigerik v. Sharpe

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided September 24, 1997

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1997-09-24

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1998

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“that only the intent of the promisee, and not the intent of both contracting parties, is dispositive of the rights of an alleged third party beneficiary of a contract.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12856 - Culbro Land Resources v. the Casle Co., No. Cv-94-0532911-S (Dec. 29, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12776 - Culbro Land Res. v. Casle Corp., No. Cv-94-0532911-S (Dec. 29, 1997)

Relies on Grigerik v. Sharpe

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-09-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The defendants’ cross petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 775 (AC 15099), is granted, limited to the following issues:

¶2“1. Did the Appellate Court properly hold that only the intent of the promisee, and not the intent of both contracting parties, is dispositive of the rights of an alleged third-party beneficiary of a contract?

¶3“2. Where the jury had specifically found that the plaintiff was neither an ‘intended’ nor ‘contemplated’ beneficiary of a contract between the defendant and another, but only a ‘foreseeable’ beneficiary of that contract, did the Appellate Court properly remand the case for retrial on the third-party beneficiary claim rather than entering judgment for the defendants?”

*919The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15779X01.Lorinda S. Coon, in support of the petition.Decided September 24, 1997