A math tutor entered into an agreement with a father to provide one month of tutoring for the father's son. The agreement provides for eight lessons at $1,000 total, plus $350 for materials from a particular educational services provider. The provider, a new company, is expected to make a sale. A week after the agreement, the tutor demands an additional $250 to tutor, and the father refuses. The provider sues. The provider is an incidental beneficiary. What is the likely outcome?

• A. No, because it was only an incidental beneficiary of the agreement.
• B. Yes, because the provider was an intended beneficiary.
• C. No, because the provider is not a party to the contract.
• D. Yes, because there was consideration.

Answer: (C)

The key idea here is who has the right to sue to enforce a contract. In contract law, standing to sue typically comes from being a party to the contract or from being an intended beneficiary of the promise. An incidental beneficiary—someone who would benefit from the contract but isn’t intended to be protected by it—has no enforceable rights.

In this scenario, the agreement is strictly between the father and the math tutor. The educational services provider is not a party to that contract, and there’s no clear promise in the contract that it will be paid or that it will receive a benefit directly. So the provider does not have standing to sue to enforce the contract.

Thus, the reason given—“the provider is not a party to the contract”—directly explains why the provider cannot recover. While it’s true that the provider would benefit from performance, that alone doesn’t create enforceable rights unless the provider is a party or an intended beneficiary.