This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
1. In his Seaver v. Ransom opinion, Pound, J., suggests that De Cicco v. Schweizer, 221 N.Y. 431, 117 N.E. 807 (1917), had extended the range of New York third party beneficiary doctrine. The De Cicco case is re-printed supra p. 494. Do you read the opinion of Cardozo, J., in De Cicco as saying that Blanche Schweizer could have brought an action as third party beneficiary on the contract between her father and Count Gulinelli?
2. Does it seem to you that Seaver v. Ransom in effect overrules Vrooman v. Turner, supra p. 1346? If so, what test does Seaver establish for determining which classes of beneficiaries are entitled to sue?
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you.