This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, this court determines whether any genuine issues of material fact exist, and whether the district court erred in applying the law. The interpretation of a clear and unambiguous contract is a matter of law for the court.
All parties agree that Illinois law governs the contract in question.
Illinois law presumes that parties are contracting for themselves and only direct, not incidental beneficiaries. If the benefit to the third party is direct and not simply incidental, then that party may sue to enforce the benefit. Thus, although Security was not a party to the contract, the express language of section 6.3 conferred a benefit on Security. Because Security was the subject of this section of the stock purchase agreement, we conclude the district court did not err in concluding Security has rights as a beneficiary to sue for its enforcement. Beaven contends the district court erred in denying its argument that the stock purchase agreement limited to two years the time under which claims arising out of the agreement could be made.