Friday, October 10, 2014

HR Moch v. Rensselaer Water case brief summary


HR Moch v. Rensselaer Water case brief summary

F: D, waterworks company, made a contract with the city to supply water. A building caught fire, and D, being notified, failed to provide, supply or furnish sufficient water to suppress the fire, and P’s warehouse was damages as a result of it. Pressure and supply which D was equipped to provide was sufficient to prevent the destruction of the building and the spread of the fire.
P argument: P was a beneficiary of the terms of the contract as a member of the public.

D Argument: D had not entered into an agreement with the P
TC ruled in favor of P, AC reversed


I: Whether A member of the public, who is not in privity of contract with supplier, may initiate lawsuit against supplier contracting with the city UNLESS an intention appears that the supplier is to be answerable to the individual members of the public as well as the city for any loss.


R: A member of the public, who is not in privity of contract with supplier, may not initiate lawsuit against supplier contracting with the city UNLESS an intention appears that the supplier is to be answerable to the individual members of the public as well as the city for any loss.
Duty does not extend to the ultimate purchase regardless of foreseeability (necessary for government)


A: There is no intention of the party where a 3rd party can maintain an action against the D.
The contract is divided into two parts: One, a promise to the city for the benefit of the city; and the other a promise to the city
for the benefit of private takers. In a broad sense every city contract is for the benefit of the public.
More than this must be shown to give a right of action to a member of the public who is not formally a party to the contract. The benefit must be one that is not merely incidental or secondary. It must be primary and immediate in such a sense and to such a degree as to bespeak the assumption of a duty to make reparation directly to the individual members of the public if the benefit is lost.


C: affirmed (in favor of D)


Co: put limit based on contract.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.