the window system, Tull Brothers was the intended third-party beneficiary. (Doc. 1 at 4-5). In response, Peerless contends that Tull Brothers lacks privity to the Purchase Order because Tull Brothers was not a party to same, the subsequent Assignment assigned only the warranty rights, and Tull Brothers was not an intended third-party beneficiary. The Court first addresses Tull Brothers’ third-party beneficiary claim. Privity is not required for Tull Brothers to be a third-party beneficiary, as this is an exception to the rule that “one who is not a party to a contract or in privity with a party cannot sue for breach of contract.” Cook v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co. of Kansas, 297 Fed.Appx. 911, 914 (11th Cir.2008). See also Dunning v. New Eng. Life Ins. Co., 890 So.2d 92, 97 (Ala.2003) (<HOLDING>). A party claiming to be a third-party
holding that in order for a plaintiff to file suit against the government on a contract claim in the court of federal claims a plaintiff must have either direct privity or thirdparty beneficiary status holding that an incidental beneficiary does not have standing to sue for breach of a contract holding that standing to sue under a contract requires plaintiff to be in privity or be an intended thirdparty beneficiary holding that the individual defendant does not have to be in privity of contract with the plaintiff to be held liable under  1981 holding that plaintiff could not prevail as a thirdparty beneficiary where contract was not valid