Or The Bonneville Power Administration. The prior trial court also decided that there was no need to “address whether the Plaintiffs are third party beneficiaries as the evidence proved that they are direct beneficiaries.” Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 105 Fed.Cl. at 433 n.2. In light of today’s privity ruling, the court is obligated to reconsider that determination, because a third-party beneficiary status is a jurisdictional exception to privity, i.e., only an intended third-party beneficiary has standing to enforce a contract to which it is not a direct party. See 13 Williston on Contracts § 37.1 (4th ed. 2013) (“[A]n exception to the need for privity was deve the express or implied intention of the contracting parties to benefit a specific third-party. See Montana, 124 F.3d at 1273 (<HOLDING>). The party asserting third-party beneficiary
holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity holding that third party must fall within a class clearly intended to be benefitted by the contract holding that a plaintiff must fall within a class clearly intended to be a beneficiary thereby holding that it is elementary that in order to maintain a class action the class sought to be represented must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable holding that advertising and selling expenses incurred by a manufacturer clearly fall within the class of charges which congress intended to be included in the tax base as they enter into the composition of the wholesale selling price