A third-party beneficiary is considered intended when

• A. The promisee intends to benefit the promisee itself
• B. The performance will satisfy an obligation to pay money to the beneficiary or circumstances indicate the promisee intends to confer the benefit
• C. The benefit is incidental and not intended by the parties
• D. The beneficiary has no right to sue the promisor

Answer: (B)

The idea being tested is when a third-party beneficiary is treated as intended. In contract law, a third party is intended if the contract between the promisee and the promisor is made with the purpose of benefiting that third party. The clearest signs are either a promise in the contract to pay money to the third party, or circumstances showing that the promisee intends to confer a benefit on the third party through performance.

That’s why the correct statement matches: the performance will satisfy an obligation to pay money to the beneficiary or circumstances indicate the promisee intends to confer the benefit. This captures both the explicit payment promise and the implied intent needed to create enforceable rights for the beneficiary.

The other situations describe incidental beneficiaries or scenarios where the promisee aims to benefit themselves, and thus do not create enforceable rights for a third party. Also, if the beneficiary truly has an intended-right status, they generally can sue the promisor once their rights vest, rather than being precluded from suing.