[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Defendant and a third-party entered a valid contract;
2. Plaintiff is not a party to the contract;
3. The parties to the contract intended that the contract primarily or directly benefit plaintiff or a class of parties of which plaintiff is a member;
4. The contract is breached;
5. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Defendant and a third-party entered a valid contract;
2. Plaintiff is not a party to the contract;
3. The parties to the contract intended that the contract primarily or directly benefit plaintiff or a class of parties of which plaintiff is a member;
4. The contract is breached;
5. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach.

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Mendez v. Hampton Court Nursing Ctr., LLC, 203 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 2016); Foundation Health v. Westside EKG Assocs., 944 So.2d 188, 194-95 (Fla. 2006); Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of N.Y., 250 So.2d 259, 262 (Fla. 1971).

First District: Clark & Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Ins., 436 So. 2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

Second District:  OTI Fiber, LLC v. CenterState Bank, N.A., 326 So.3d 743, 746-47 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021);  Pezeshkan v. Manhattan Constr. Fla., Inc., 313 So. 3d 948, 951-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); Williams v. CVT, LLC, 295 So.3d 883, 887-88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).

Third District: Inspirato LLC v. Ciafone, 274 So.3d 487, 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Health Options, Inc. v. Palmetto Pathology Servs., P.A., 983 So.2d 608, 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Fourth District: Reconco v. Integon Nat’l Ins. Co., 312 So. 3d 914, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Saadeh v. Connors, 166 So. 3d 959, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Fifth District: Goins v. Praetorian Ins. Co., 302 So. 3d 478, 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020); E.P. v. Hogreve, 259 So. 3d 1007, 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Andrews v. Marshall, 845 F. App’x 849, 859 (11th Cir. 2021); Gables Ins. Recovery v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 813 F.3d 1333, 1338 (11th Cir. 2015).

Southern District:Carey v. Kirk, 2022 WL 17996027, *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2022); Driessen v. Univ. of Miami Sch. Of Law Child. & Youth Law Clinic, 2021 WL 4076842, *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2021); Barham v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 556 F.Supp.3d 1318, 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2021); Burillo de Larrea v. Golden Yacht Charters, Inc., 2022 WL 1135695, *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2022).

Middle District:  AWE Watersports, LLC v. Potential Claimants, 2022 WL 767626, *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2022); McKesson Glob. Sourcing Ltd. v. M.C. Johnson Co., Inc., 2022 WL 716818, *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2022); Groover v. Polk Cty. Bd. of Cty. Commissioners, 460 F. Supp. 3d 1242, 1252 (M.D. Fla. 2020); Miller v. Ascom Holding AG, No. 819CV02582T60CPT, 2019 WL 6910157, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2019).

Bankruptcy Court Middle District: In re SRQ Taxi Mgmt., LLC, No. 8:17-bk-07782-MGW, 614 B.R. 111, 130 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2020).

Northern District: In re Mun. Parking Services, Inc. DPPA Litig., No. 3:24CV320-TKW-HTC, 2025 WL 1475778, *3-4 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2025)(explaining elements to qualify as third-party beneficiary); Baker v. Integon Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 4:20-CV-91-AW-MAF, 2020 WL 5909936, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2020); Elephant Walk, Inc. v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-195-RS-CAS, 2014 WL 241769, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2014).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (five years); but see § 95.11(5)(a)(one-year statute of limitation for action for specific performance of a contract).

(3) The contract does not evidence any intent to benefit a third party. See Dingle v. Dellinger, 134 So.3d 484, 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); Serra-Cruz v. Carnival Corp., 400 F.Supp. 1364, 1372-73 (S.D. Fla. 2019); Driessen v. Univ. of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Clinic, 260 So.3d 1080, 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Pharma Supply, Inc. v. Stein, No. 14-80374-CIV-COHN/SELTZER, 2015 WL 11422321, at *15 (S.D. Fla. April 27, 2015) (recognizing that “[I]t is not an absolute requirement that the plaintiff allege explicit contractual language designating it as an intended beneficiary. Instead, a plaintiff may allege that the parties in some other manner expressed an intent to benefit it through their contract.”); Suarez v. Integon Nat’l Ins. Co., No 19-22006-CIV-MORENO, 2019 WL 8014371, at *2 (S.D. Fla. October 15, 2019 (quoting Clark & Co. v. Dep’t of Ins. as Receiver of E. Ins. Co., 436 So. 2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983 )) (recognizing “It is not sufficient to show only that one of the contracting parties unilaterally intended some benefit to the third party.”).

(4) Defendant’s obligation to perform under the contract may be excused under the doctrine of commercial frustration when the purposes of the contract, or those which defendant bargained for, have become “frustrated because of the failure of consideration, or impossibility of performance by the other party.’’ See Home Design Center Joint Venture v. County Appliances of Naples, Inc., 563 So. 2d 767, 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hillsborough County v. Star Ins. Co., 847 F.3d 1296, 1305 (11th Cir. 2017).

(5) Duress requires severe pressure or other influence that destroys the defendant’s free will, and forces the defendant to do an act or enter into a contract. See Cooper v. Cooper, 69 So. 2d 881, 883 (Fla. 1954); Cableview Commc’ns of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable Southeast, LLC, 901 F.3d 1294, 1301 (11th Cir. 2018); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 174-177 (1981).

(6) Statute of Frauds: Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d); see also §§ 672.201, 672.206 (Florida U.C.C.), 678.319 (sale of securities), 680.201 (leasing), 725.01 (payment of another’s debt), Fla. Stat; Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 110, 130 (1981).

(7) The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires that each party act consistently with, and take no actions to frustrate, the contract’s purpose, with the exception that Florida courts will not employ the covenant to negate a contract’s express terms. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205 (1981).

(8) Impossibility of performance is a defense to breach of contract when the factual situation renders one party’s performance under the contract impossible. See Home Design Center Joint Venture v. County Appliances of Naples, Inc., 563 So. 2d 767, 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hillsborough County v. Star Ins. Co., 847 F.3d 1296, 1305 (11th Cir. 2017).

(9) Contract enforcement is unconscionable when the contractual term was unreasonable and unfair (substantive unconscionability) at the time the parties entered the contract (procedural unconscionability). See Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Cole, 287 So.3d 1272, 1275-76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condo., Inc., 398 So.2d 865, 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 408 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 1981); McAdoo v. New Line Transp., LLC, No. 8:16-cv-1917-T-27AEP, 2017 WL 942114, at *3 (M.D. Fla. March 9, 2017); see also § 672.302, Fla. Stat.; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208 (1981).

(10) Mistake: In re Maxko Petroleum, LLC, 425 B.R. 852, 871-72 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2010) (holding “[i]n order for a trial court to reform a contract or excuse a party from performance, the evidence must clearly and convincingly show a mutual mistake of fact as to a material, substantial element of a contract.”). 

(a) Mutual mistake, which renders a contract voidable when both parties, at the time of making a contract, were mistaken as to a basic assumption of the contract that has a material effect on the parties’ performances under the contract. See Continental Assur. Co. v. Carroll, 485 So. 2d 406, 409 n.2 (Fla. 1986); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 152 (1981).

(b) Unilateral mistake, which allows a party to void a contract when the party, at the time of making a contract, was mistaken as to a basic assumption of the contract that has a material effect of the parties’ performances which is adverse to the mistaken party. See DePrince v. Starboard Cruises, Inc., No. 3D16-1149, 2018 WL 3636849 (Fla. 3d DCA August 1, 2018); Contraband Sports, LLC v. Fit Four, LLC, No. 17-24615-Civ-SCOLA/TORRES, 2018 WL 6620902 (S.D. Fla. October 11, 2018); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 153 (1981).

(11) Repudiation: An obligee sued for breach of contract may assert the defense of repudiation when the obligor first repudiated his or her duty of performance. See Southern Crane Rentals, Inc. v. City of Gainesville, 429 So. 2d 771, 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); City of Bradenton v. Safety Nat’l Casualty Corp., No. 8:17-cv-267-T-33MAP, 2017 WL 2448399, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2017) (explaining the difference between an immediate breach and a repudiation); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 250-257 (1981).

(12) Failure to Satisfy Conditions Precedent: A defending party’s assertion that a plaintiff has failed to satisfy conditions precedent necessary to trigger contractual duties under an existing agreement is generally viewed as an affirmative defense, for which the defensive pleader has the burden of pleading and persuasion. See Diaz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 189 So. 3d 279, 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Harris v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 223 So.3d 1030, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

(12) A contract induced by fraud renders the entire agreement voidable, permitting the aggrieved party to defend a suit on the contract by objecting to its enforcement because it was procured or induced by fraud, however, the defense is lost if the injured party manifests an intention to affirm the contract after acquiring knowledge of the fraud. See Antech Diagnostics, Inc. v. Posner, No. 17-80185-CV, 2018 WL 2298350, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2018).

(13) Third party beneficiary disclaimers can defeat third party beneficiary claims. Gammons v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 558 F.Supp.3d 1220, 1229 (S.D. Fla. 2021).

[/MM_Access_Decision]