My assumption, on which I would welcome your comments, is that many (not
all, but enough) foreign courts would enforce a US third party
beneficiary theory if the agremeent specified a particular US state as
the governing law of the agreement. I would have expected Canadian
courts to do this -- would they?
I agree that there is not uniformity among all US states, but that is an
advantage -- pick the right state to get the best law for this problem,
and all US and many foreign courts will respect your choice of law.
Craig McTaggart wrote:
>
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> > Third party beneficiary theory of contract is not necessarily something
> > that is perfectly uniform even among the individual states of the United
> > States much less among different nations.
>
> It doesn't exist in Canada, for instance. If you ain't a party, you're out
> of luck. You can only enforce promises that were made to you, and I'm
> surprised that this rule has exceptions in the United States. Perhaps if a
> third party changes its position, with the promisor's knowledge, at some
> time after the promisor has explicitly acknowledge that the third party is
> relying on the promise made to the promisee, but even that is pretty
> tenuous. Contracts with nobody in particular are no more enforceable at
> law.
>
> Craig McTaggart
> Graduate Student
> Faculty of Law
> University of Toronto
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
--> It's hot there. I'm elsewhere. <--
