In Third-Party Beneficiaries and the Nature of Contract, Nicholas W. Sage raised some concerns with the proposal for revising our understanding of contractual obligation championed by Nicolas Cornell’s Article The Puzzle of the Beneficiary’s Bargain. In this reply, Cornell strives to make three points about Sage’s response essay. First, he quickly rehashes the puzzle raised in The Puzzle of the Beneficiary’s Bargain, noting a couple points where my characterization may diverge from Sage’s. Second, he comments on Sage’s proposed way of resolving the puzzle. Sage thinks that he has a way of dissolving the puzzle that will avoid the need for significant conceptual revisions, but Cornell is not convinced that Sage actually offers much of a solution. Finally, Cornell responds to two different criticisms that Sage levels against his own solution to the puzzle.

Read the article here.

Share →