Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 29-102 (2026)

Enforcement by beneficiary. 

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Enforcement by beneficiary. 

A contract, made expressly for the benefit of a third person, may be enforced by him at any time before the parties thereto rescind it.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1949–2022 · leading case: Great Plains Equip., Inc. v. Nw. Pipeline Corp., 979 P.2d 627 (Idaho 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Great Plains Equip., Inc. v. Nw. Pipeline Corp., 979 P.2d 627 (Idaho 1999). · cites it 26× “As noted, Idaho Code § 29-102 provides that a contract made expressly for the benefit of a third person may be enforced by the third person at any time before the parties thereto rescind it.”
Clearwater REI v. Mark Boling, 318 P.3d 944 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 8× “55% of the Gross Proceeds [from the sale of the notes]” and that “[t]he Company [Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC] will receive up to 0.40% of the Gross Proceeds.”
Just's, Inc. v. Arrington Constr. Co., 583 P.2d 997 (Idaho 1978). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 29-102. Yellowstone Pipe Line Co. v.”
Wing v. Martin, 688 P.2d 1172 (Idaho 1984). · cites it 4× “' I.C. § 29-102. However, absent a manifest intent to benefit the third party, courts are hesitant to enforce a contract on his behalf.”
Idaho Power Co. v. Hulet, 90 P.3d 335 (Idaho 2004). · cites it 6× “IDAHO POWER WAS NOT A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN HULET AND COMSTOCK Under Idaho law, if a party can demonstrate that a contract was made expressly for its benefit, it may enforce that contract, prior to rescission, as a third-party beneficiary.”
Am. West Enter., Inc. v. CNH, LLC, 316 P.3d 662 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 4× “) Under Idaho law [I.C. § 29-102], if a party can demonstrate that a contract was made expressly for its benefit, it may enforce that contract, prior to rescission, as a third-party beneficiary.”
Canyon View Irrigation Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 619 P.2d 122 (Idaho 1980). · cites it 4× “" I.C. § 29-102. However, absent a manifest intent to benefit the third party, courts are hesitant to enforce a contract on his behalf.”
Baldwin v. Leach, 769 P.2d 590 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 10× “As noted above, Idaho Code § 29-102 provides that “[a] contract, made expressly for the benefit of a third person, may be enforced by him any time before the parties thereto rescind.”
Seubert Excavators, Inc. v. Eucon Corp., 874 P.2d 555 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “Wausau, on the other hand, maintains that the only intended beneficiary of the bond is the state of Washington, and that the purpose of the bond is to protect the state from potential claims arising from Seubert’s failure to pay its laborers and subcontractors. Had the parties…”
Partout v. Harper, 183 P.3d 771 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 2× “3d 439, 446 (2004); I.C. § 29-102. “The test for determining a party’s status as a third-party beneficiary .”
Stewart v. Arrington Constr. Co., 446 P.2d 895 (Idaho 1968). · cites it 4× “Such a cause of action is properly tested by Rule 56 summary judgment procedure.”
Nelson v. Anderson Lumber Co., 99 P.3d 1092 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Third party beneficiary The Nelsons argue that, although a contract did not exist between themselves and Anderson, Wicher, and IBP, they are still liable for breach of contract because the Nelsons are third party beneficiaries of any contract entered into between Steinbruegge…”
Show all 29 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.