1. In the case, the court focused on the language of the contract. In the contract, the Desses agreed to fully disclose all information about the property. Further, under the terms of the contract, it was agreed that Sirva and "other prospective buyers" could rely on the Desses' disclosures. Would the Desses have had a stronger case if the contract was silent as to which parties could rely on the Desses' disclosures?

Yes, if the agreement between the Desses and Sirva had not included "prospective buyers" then they would have probably not been sued, instead Sirva would have been sued directly. The Kincaids would not have been considered third party beneficiaries of the agreement between the Desses and Sirva.

Explanation:

This case is about a real estate property sold, where the sellers (Desses) agreed to fully disclose all information about the property to the real estate agent (Sirva) and prospective buyers (Kincaids). After the Kincaids bought the property, they found that it had several undisclosed problems, like rotten windows, mold, dampened walls, etc., which the Desses should have disclosed but didn't.

The Kincaids sued alleging rights as third part beneficiaries since they were considered prospective buyers. In this case, the court ruled that the Kincaids name did not have to appear in the contract between Sirva and the Desses in order to be considered third party beneficiaries since they contracted with Sirva to purchase the house. So the court allowed the Kincaids to sue the Desses directly, and ruled in their favor.

If the agreement between the Desses and Sirva had not included "prospective buyers" then they would have probably not been sued, instead Sirva would have been sued directly.

Yes

Explanation:

The Desses would have had a stronger argument if the contract was silent in this way because it would have been less likely that there was a designated class of third-party beneficiaries under the contract.

Cheers