For several weeks Mater, a wealthy, unemployed widow, and Nirvana Motors, Inc., negotiated unsuccessfully over the purchase price of a new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan, which, as Nirvana knew, Mater wanted her son Dilbert to have as a wedding gift. On April 27, Nirvana sent Mater a signed, dated memo saying, "If we can arrive at the same price within the next week, do we have a deal?" Mater wrote "Yes" and her signature at the bottom of this memo and delivered it back to Nirvana on April 29. On May 1, Mater wrote Nirvana a signed letter offering to buy "one new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan, with all available equipment, for $180,000 cash on delivery not later than June 1." By coincidence, Nirvana wrote Mater a signed letter on May 1 offering to sell her "one new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan, with all available equipment, for $180,000 cash on delivery not later than June 1." These letters crossed in the mails and were respectively received and read by Mater and Nirvana on May 2. For this question only, assume the following facts. On May 4, Mater and Nirvana Motors both signed a single document evidencing a contract for the sale by Nirvana to Mater, "as a wedding gift for Mater's son Dilbert," a new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan, under the same terms as previously stated in their correspondence. On May 5, Mater handed Dilbert a carbon copy of this document. In reliance on the prospective gift, Dilbert on May 20 sold his nearly new Cheetah (an expensive sports car) to a dealer at a "bargain" price of $50,000 and immediately informed Mater and Nirvana that he had done so. On May 25, however, Mater and Nirvana Motors by mutual agreement rescinded in a signed writing "any and all agreements heretofore made between the undersigned parties for the sale-and-purchase of a new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan." Later that day, Nirvana sold for $190,000 cash to another buyer the only new Mark XX Rolls-Royce that it had in stock or could readily obtain elsewhere. On June 1, Dilbert tendered $180,000 in cash to Nirvana Motors and demanded delivery to him "within a reasonable time" of a new Mark XX RollsRoyce sedan with all available equipment. Nirvana rejected the tender and denied any obligation. If Dilbert sues Nirvana for breach of contract, which of the following will the court probably decide? 
Dilbert wins, because his rights as an assignee for value of the May 4 MaterNirvana contract cannot be cut off by agreement between the original parties.  Dilbert wins, because his rights as a third-party intended beneficiary became vested by his prejudicial reliance in selling his Cheetah on May 20.  Nirvana wins, because Dilbert, if an intended beneficiary at all of the MaterNirvana contract, was only a donee beneficiary.  Nirvana wins, because it reasonably and prejudicially relied on its contract of mutual rescission with Mater by selling the only readily available new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan to another buyer. 
Question: For several weeks Mater, a wealthy, unemployed widow, and Nirvana Motors, Inc., negotiated unsuccessfully over the purchase price of a new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan, which, as Nirvana knew, Mater wanted her son Dilbert to have as a wedding gift. On April 27, Nirvana sent Mater a signed, dated memo saying, "If we can arrive at the same price within the next week, do we have a deal?" Mater wrote "Yes" and her signature at the bottom of this memo and delivered it back to Nirvana on April 29. On May 1, Mater wrote Nirvana a signed letter offering to buy "one new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan, with all available equipment, for $180,000 cash on delivery not later than June 1." By coincidence, Nirvana wrote Mater a signed letter on May 1 offering to sell her "one new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan, with all available equipment, for $180,000 cash on delivery not later than June 1." These letters crossed in the mails and were respectively received and read by Mater and Nirvana on May 2. For this question only, assume the following facts. On May 4, Mater and Nirvana Motors both signed a single document evidencing a contract for the sale by Nirvana to Mater, "as a wedding gift for Mater's son Dilbert," a new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan, under the same terms as previously stated in their correspondence. On May 5, Mater handed Dilbert a carbon copy of this document. In reliance on the prospective gift, Dilbert on May 20 sold his nearly new Cheetah (an expensive sports car) to a dealer at a "bargain" price of $50,000 and immediately informed Mater and Nirvana that he had done so. On May 25, however, Mater and Nirvana Motors by mutual agreement rescinded in a signed writing "any and all agreements heretofore made between the undersigned parties for the sale-and-purchase of a new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan." Later that day, Nirvana sold for $190,000 cash to another buyer the only new Mark XX Rolls-Royce that it had in stock or could readily obtain elsewhere. On June 1, Dilbert tendered $180,000 in cash to Nirvana Motors and demanded delivery to him "within a reasonable time" of a new Mark XX RollsRoyce sedan with all available equipment. Nirvana rejected the tender and denied any obligation. If Dilbert sues Nirvana for breach of contract, which of the following will the court probably decide? 
A. Dilbert wins, because his rights as an assignee for value of the May 4 MaterNirvana contract cannot be cut off by agreement between the original parties. 
B. Dilbert wins, because his rights as a third-party intended beneficiary became vested by his prejudicial reliance in selling his Cheetah on May 20. 
C. Nirvana wins, because Dilbert, if an intended beneficiary at all of the MaterNirvana contract, was only a donee beneficiary. 
D. Nirvana wins, because it reasonably and prejudicially relied on its contract of mutual rescission with Mater by selling the only readily available new Mark XX Rolls-Royce sedan to another buyer. 
Answer: