is reason to believe that the better course would be to proceed to a full trial” a trial court may deny summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. II. Third-party beneficiary status Because plaintiffs California Water, the City of Stockton, and the County of San Joaquin receive water from the Stockton East, they claim to be third-party beneficiaries to the Stockton Easb-Reclamation Contract. Defendant disputes that these plaintiffs are intended third-party beneficiaries and contends that they are subject to dismissal or, in the alternative, that their claims should be adjudicated within the parameters of the Stockton East Contract as they have nothing to do with Central. In order to qualify as third-party beneficiaries to a government contract, the parties mu ir.1994) (<HOLDING>). One method of “establishing] privity of
holding that absent privity between plaintiffs and the government there is no ease holding that a federal regulation did not create privity of contract between the plaintiff and the government holding that for the government to be sued on a contract pursuant to the tucker act there must be privity of contract between the plaintiff and the united states holding that under virginia law an implied warranty claim was not actionable against the plaintiff because there was no privity holding that there is no privity of contract between the government and a surety since the government is not a party to the agreement between the surety and the contractor the government never undertakes an obligation to the surety