What happens if a contract outlines a beneficiary but implies it is an option?

In a situation where a contract designates a third party as a beneficiary while also implying that it is merely an option, the implication is that the third party does not have unilateral rights to enforce the contract. Instead, the rights are contingent upon an affirmative act, such as acceptance or performance by the party primarily obligated under the contract.

When the contract states that the beneficiary's benefit is optional, it suggests that the original parties may decide not to confer any benefits upon the third party, thereby limiting the enforceability of the third party's potential claims. Therefore, even though a beneficiary is outlined, the nature of the option prevents the third party from claiming reliance or enforceability after the contract's terms have been published.

Specifically, the option status implies that any benefits must be enacted by the obligor, and without that enactment, the third party lacks standing to enforce the contract. Such a context highlights the limitations placed on third-party rights in situations where the contract does not create an unconditional benefit or right.