Question

In the Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of California, Inc. case, the court held that ________.

1) the plaintiff was entitled to proceed with her contract claim against the jeweler because the jeweler must have understood that she was an intended beneficiary of the sales contract.
2) both of the contracting parties must intend to benefit the third party to create a right to sue in the third party.
3) a specific manifestation by the prmisor of an intent to benefit the third person is required to create a third party beneficiary contract.
4) the plaintiff was a donee beneficiary and, as such, she had no right to use.

Answer 1

In the Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of California, Inc. case, the court held that a third party beneficiary contract requires a specific manifestation of intent to benefit the third person.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of California, Inc. case, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to proceed with her contract claim against the jeweler because the jeweler must have understood that she was an intended beneficiary of the sales contract. The court held that a specific manifestation by the prmisor of an intent to benefit the third person is required to create a third party beneficiary contract. Therefore, option 3) is the correct answer. Option 1) is incorrect because it does not reflect the court's decision in this case. Option 2) is incorrect because it does not require a specific manifestation of intent. Option 4) is incorrect because the plaintiff being a donee beneficiary does not affect her right to sue.