KMART v. Balfour Beatty
|KMART v. Balfour Beatty|
|Court||US Virgin Islands|
|Citation||994 F. Supp. 634|
|Date decided||February 5, 1998|
*Balfour Beatty, Inc. = shopping mall developer = construction company for commercial entities = defendant = "Balfour" = defendant
*Tutu Park Ltd. = "Tutu" = owner of the shopping mall
*KMART Corporation = "Kmart" = plaintiff = 3rd party in the contract between Tutu & Balfour
- In 1992, Balfour is contracted to build a shopping center in Saint Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
- Kmart was going to be 1 of the tenants at the shopping mall.
- Kmart never directly contracted with Balfour.
- The contract was executed with Kmart in mind. The contract stipulated that Balfour's construction schedules comply with KMART’s requirements.
- In 1995, winds from Hurricane Maryland damaged the shopping center's roof.
Yes. A party (Kmart) is an intended 3rd-party beneficiary to a contract if a promisee appears to want to give the contract's benefit to the 3rd party, & the contracting parties (Tutu & Balfour) don't indicate otherwise.At the same time, Kmart is bound by the contract's arbitration clause.