Aprofessor owned a home next door to a very dilapidated, neglected home. john cataldo purchased the home next door and made a contract with wizard home improvements for a complete renovation of the property. the professor was delighted because the improvement of the cataldo home was upgrading the neighborhood and raising the value of the professor's home. after making the last required payment on the contract, john cataldo became seriously ill and ultimately was taken to a nursing home for care. when wizard learned of cataldo's illness and confinement, wizard ceased work on the cataldo home. because the outside renovation work had not been completed, the premises began to return to its former rundown condition. the professor ultimately sued wizard as a third-party beneficiary of the contract between cataldo and wizard. what is the probable outcome of the lawsuit?

Please find the detailed answer as follows:

Explanation:

A third-party beneficiary, in the law of contracts, is a person who may have the right to sue on a contract, despite not having originally been an active party to the contract. This right, known as a ius quaesitum tertio, arises when the third party (tertius or alteri) is the intended beneficiary of the contract, as opposed to a mere incidental beneficiary (penitus extraneus).

An incidental beneficiary is a third party who benefits from a contract between two other parties, but it is not intended that the third party benefit. Therefore, the third party does not have any legal rights under the contract while An intended beneficiary is a specific type of third-party beneficiary. The intended beneficiary will benefit from the execution of a contract by acquiring certain rights under the terms of the contract in question. They also have the ability to enforce the terms of a contract once their rights have vested. Intended beneficiaries are also sometimes referred to as "direct beneficiaries."

now on the question, The professor's lawsuit will be dismissed. Although the professor was benefited by the contract between Cataldo and Wizard, the professor was merely an incidental beneficiary. There was no inten- tion to benefit the professor when the contract was made.

answer; because many corporate watch groups will discover and publicize unethical behavior by suppliers, link it to the american company, and harm its reputation;

answer; charters;