This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: assignment made by Thomas. 7. No. Julie had only such rights as the policy created. The policy required notice promptly after death. The fact that she was not a party to the contract and had not agreed to the time limitation was irrelevant. She could enforce the contract only according to its terms. By those terms, the time limitation prevented recovery. 9. There was no intent on the part of the contracting parties that any person bitten by a stray dog would have the right to sue the Humane Society. Members of the public were incidental beneficiaries of the contract. 11. Yes. The widow was correct in stating that past benefits could not be consideration, but this did not dispose of the case. The widow loses because no consideration is required for an assignment....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/29/2012 for the course BUSINESS 101 taught by Professor Monastersky during the Spring '10 term at Bergen Community College.
- Spring '10
- Business Law