The Court of Appeal found that the contract had created, in its first person, a class of persons capable of enforcing the contract as contracting parties, namely the successor of the owner who entered into the agreement. In this sense, the Browns did not have to prove the application of the « third-benefit rule. » They were indeed parties as much as the original party. If the licensee entrusts the electrical portion of the main contract to the electrical subcontractor (if authorized), the enure clause would likely apply, as this clause would likely be expressed as a transferee. If the clause contains both successors and assignments, the word « successor » must have a broader meaning than « Assisgns, » but to whom does it belong? What does the word « successor » mean? Who are the « successors »? Do those who enter into the contract know who the successors are? 4. The government recognizes the purchaser as the successor to the taker to the interest and the contract. By this contract, the purchaser is entitled to all rights, securities and interest of the ceding on and on the contract, as if the purchaser were the original part of the contract. After this contract comes into effect, the terms of the contract are the carriers and contractors that relate to the purchaser. Another problem is that if the cancellation clause is also binding on rights holders, third parties may be bound by contractual obligations, even if they have never signed the contract. Indeed, a good test to determine whether the contract benefits a third party may be whether it should be binding on that party.

Clearly, the Browns were prepared to be bound by the 1953 agreement and allow Belleville access to their land to repair and maintain the drainage system, so it was not difficult to find that the Browns were the successor. Similarly, a subtenant or lender of the Brown property would be willing to grant such access, so that they could well succeed him. The integration clause really comes into play when one party says that there have been discussions and agreements that were not recorded in the written contract, but were still part of the agreement. A typical integration clause says something like « this contract expresses the parties` full understanding of the transactions described here. » Therefore, if the contract contains such a clause and a page later says that there was another aspect of the agreement that was agreed but not in the contract (for example. B, that the buyer would receive a 10% discount for each week of delay in the event of late delivery), the other party will refer to the integration clause and argues that it prohibits any declaration that such another agreement ever existed – that is, the other party will notice that the full agreement « clause « , point of the clause, indicates that the contract expresses all the understanding of the parties on the subject matter of the contract , so there are no other important conditions that cannot be found in the written contract.