DocketNumber: No. 124574
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 7474, 14 Conn. L. Rptr. 540
Judges: McDONALD, J.
Filed Date: 7/7/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Supply has now moved to strike the second count, on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract. The basis of the defendant's motion is that the plaintiff was not an intended beneficiary of the contract.
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to `contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.' In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint. The court must construe the facts in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff." (Citations omitted.) Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority,
208 Conn. 161 ,170 ,544 A.2d 1185 (1988).
Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc.,
"[O]ne who [is] neither a party to the contract nor a contemplated beneficiary thereof cannot sue to enforce the promises of the contract . . . ." Coburn v. Lenox Homes, Inc.,
[T]he ultimate test to be applied [in determining whether a person may enforce a contract as a third party beneficiary] is whether the intent of the parties to the contract was that the promisor should assume a direct obligation to the third party [beneficiary] and that intent is to be determined from the terms of the contract read in the light of the circumstances attending its making, including the motives and purposes of the parties.
(Internal quotation marks omitted; citations omitted.) Knapp v.New Haven Road Construction Co.,
Supply argues that the plaintiff has failed to allege any relationship to either defendant, and therefore, she has not alleged any direct benefit under the terms of the contract sufficient to enforce the contract as an intended beneficiary.
The plaintiff, however, has alleged that the defendant Thurston retained control of the hallways and entrances used by the tenants and those lawfully entering the building. The plaintiff's complaint, when construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, contains allegations that the plaintiff was an invitee on the Thurston's premises, and therefore, "that the defendant owed him a duty to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Cruz v. Drezek,
/s/ McDonald, J. McDONALD