Table of Contents
Third-Party Beneficiary Rights in Contract Law
A contract does not always benefit only the people who sign it.
Sometimes two parties enter into an agreement specifically to provide a legal or financial benefit to someone else. That person may never have negotiated the contract, signed it, or provided consideration. Yet the law may allow that person to enforce the agreement.
This is the doctrine of the third-party beneficiary.
Third-party beneficiary law is one of the most important qualifications to the traditional doctrine of privity of contract. The basic rule of privity is that a person who is not a party to a contract ordinarily cannot enforce it. But when the contracting parties intended to give a third person an enforceable benefit, modern contract law may recognize that person’s rights.
The central question is therefore not simply:
Did this person benefit from the contract?
It is:
Did the contracting parties intend to give this person a legally enforceable right?
That distinction separates an intended beneficiary from an incidental beneficiary.
Need Official Legal Templates or Documents?
Access attorney-reviewed, fully editable Word (.docx) contracts and printable PDF guides formatted for immediate legal protection.
- ✓ Fully Editable: Includes Word (.docx) & printable PDF
- ✓ Key Clauses: IP transfer, non-solicitation, indemnification & remedies
- ✓ Practitioner Guide: Includes line-by-line filling instructions
Select the specific document below that best fits your requirements:
1. What Is a Third-Party Beneficiary?
A third-party beneficiary is a person who is not an original party to a contract but may acquire enforceable rights because the contracting parties intended the agreement to benefit that person.
Consider a simple example:
Alice pays Bob to deliver a valuable piece of property to Charlie.
Alice and Bob are the contracting parties.
Charlie is not an original party to the agreement.
But if the contract was made specifically to benefit Charlie, Charlie may have enforceable rights as a third-party beneficiary.
The law therefore recognizes three distinct positions:
- Promisee — the party who receives the promise.
- Promisor — the party who makes the promise.
- Third-party beneficiary — the person whom the contract is intended to benefit.
The third-party beneficiary doctrine allows the beneficiary, in appropriate circumstances, to enforce the promisor’s obligation.
2. The Traditional Rule of Privity
Historically, contract law placed considerable emphasis on privity.
If A and B entered into a contract, C generally could not sue to enforce it because C was not a party.
This made sense under a traditional conception of contract:
Contractual rights arise from the agreement of the contracting parties.
But commercial and personal transactions frequently involve agreements deliberately designed to benefit people who are not signatories.
Examples include:
- life insurance policies;
- contracts made for the benefit of family members;
- construction agreements;
- settlements;
- government contracts;
- employment-related arrangements;
- trusts and similar arrangements;
- commercial agreements involving downstream parties.
The third-party beneficiary doctrine developed to accommodate these situations.
3. Intended Beneficiaries vs. Incidental Beneficiaries
This is the fundamental distinction.
Intended Beneficiary
An intended beneficiary is a person whom the contracting parties intended to benefit through their agreement.
That person may acquire enforceable rights under the contract.
Incidental Beneficiary
An incidental beneficiary receives some benefit from the contract, but the contracting parties did not intend to give that person enforceable contractual rights.
An incidental beneficiary generally cannot sue for breach of the contract.
For example:
A city hires a construction company to build a new public park.
Thousands of residents may benefit from the completed park.
But the residents ordinarily are not intended third-party beneficiaries of the construction contract.
Their benefit is incidental to the agreement.
The construction contract was made between the city and the contractor, not between the contractor and every resident who might eventually use the park.
4. Why Intention Matters
The distinction between intended and incidental beneficiaries prevents contractual liability from becoming unlimited.
Imagine that a company hires a contractor to build a shopping center.
The contract benefits:
- the property owner;
- the contractor;
- future tenants;
- customers;
- employees;
- suppliers;
- neighboring businesses;
- local residents.
If everyone who benefited from the project automatically acquired contractual rights, the boundaries of the contract would become impossible to define.
The law therefore asks whether the contracting parties intended to confer enforceable rights on the particular third person.
Benefit alone is insufficient.
5. How Courts Determine Intent
Courts generally examine the contract and the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the third person was intended to have enforceable rights.
Relevant considerations may include:
- the language of the contract;
- the identity of the alleged beneficiary;
- the purpose of the agreement;
- the circumstances surrounding its formation;
- the nature of the promised performance;
- whether performance is directed specifically toward the third person;
- whether recognizing third-party rights makes sense of the transaction.
The court is concerned with the objective structure and purpose of the agreement rather than simply asking whether the third party happened to receive an advantage.
6. The Beneficiary Does Not Have to Sign the Contract
One of the defining characteristics of a third-party beneficiary is that the beneficiary is not an original contracting party.
The beneficiary generally does not need to:
- negotiate the contract;
- sign the contract;
- provide consideration;
- participate in drafting the agreement.
The beneficiary’s rights arise from the agreement made by the original parties.
This is one reason third-party beneficiary doctrine is a significant departure from a strict conception of privity.
7. The Main Categories of Intended Beneficiaries
Older cases and legal literature sometimes distinguish among different categories of beneficiaries, including creditor beneficiaries and donee beneficiaries.
These classifications are historically important but are less central to modern American contract law than the broader distinction between intended and incidental beneficiaries.
Creditor Beneficiary
A creditor beneficiary traditionally referred to a person who was intended to receive the benefit of a contract because the promisee owed that person a preexisting obligation.
For example:
Alice owes Charlie $5,000. Alice contracts with Bob, requiring Bob to pay Charlie $5,000 on Alice’s behalf.
Charlie could historically be described as a creditor beneficiary.
Donee Beneficiary
A donee beneficiary traditionally referred to a person who was intended to receive a benefit as a gift rather than to satisfy an existing debt.
For example:
Alice contracts with Bob to deliver $5,000 to Charlie as a gift.
Charlie could traditionally be described as a donee beneficiary.
Modern doctrine generally focuses less on these labels and more on whether the contracting parties intended the third person to have enforceable rights.
8. The Rights of an Intended Beneficiary
Once a third-party beneficiary has enforceable rights, the beneficiary may generally sue the promisor for failure to perform the promised obligation.
For example:
Alice contracts with Bob to pay Charlie $20,000. Bob refuses to make the payment.
If Charlie is an intended beneficiary with enforceable rights, Charlie may be able to sue Bob for breach.
The beneficiary’s rights, however, are defined by the contract.
The beneficiary does not receive a blank check to demand whatever result seems fair.
The beneficiary receives the rights that the contract and applicable law provide.
9. The Beneficiary’s Rights Are Derived from the Contract
A third-party beneficiary does not normally acquire greater contractual rights than those created by the agreement.
Suppose a contract requires Bob to pay Charlie $10,000 only if a specified condition occurs.
Charlie cannot ordinarily demand the $10,000 before the condition occurs merely because Charlie is an intended beneficiary.
Similarly, if the contract limits a particular remedy, that limitation may affect the beneficiary’s claim.
The third-party beneficiary therefore stands on the contractual foundation created by the original parties.
10. The Beneficiary’s Rights Can Vest
An important concept in third-party beneficiary law is vesting.
A beneficiary’s rights may initially be subject to modification or termination by the contracting parties.
Once the beneficiary’s rights have vested, however, the original parties may lose some or all of their ability to change those rights without the beneficiary’s consent.
The precise rules depend on the governing law and the terms of the contract.
The Restatement (Second) of Contracts generally treats beneficiary rights as becoming enforceable when the beneficiary materially changes position in reliance on the rights, brings suit to enforce them, or otherwise manifests assent in circumstances recognized by the applicable law.
The concept is important because it creates a transition:
Before vesting: the original parties may have greater freedom to modify or terminate the beneficiary’s rights.
After vesting: the beneficiary’s rights may become substantially more secure.
11. Why Vesting Matters
Consider this example:
Alice contracts with Bob to pay $50,000 to Charlie. Before Charlie takes any action, Alice and Bob agree to cancel the arrangement.
If Charlie’s rights have not vested, the law may permit Alice and Bob to modify or terminate the obligation.
Now change the facts:
Charlie learns about the agreement and materially changes his position in reliance on receiving the $50,000.
The legal analysis may be different.
Vesting therefore protects beneficiaries who have begun to rely on the contractual right or have taken legally significant steps to enforce it.
12. The Contract May Expressly Address Third-Party Rights
Contract drafting can make third-party rights clearer.
An agreement may expressly state:
- that a particular person is an intended beneficiary;
- that a particular class of people has enforcement rights;
- that no third party has enforcement rights;
- that third-party rights may be modified or terminated;
- that only specified provisions may be enforced by beneficiaries.
These clauses can be highly significant.
A contract that expressly identifies a third-party beneficiary provides strong evidence concerning the parties’ intentions.
Conversely, a clause stating that the agreement creates no rights in third parties may make a third-party claim much more difficult, although the precise legal effect depends on the governing law and circumstances.
13. Third-Party Beneficiary vs. Incidental Beneficiary
The distinction can be summarized as follows:
| Question | Intended Beneficiary | Incidental Beneficiary |
|---|---|---|
| Receives a benefit? | Yes | Yes |
| Was the benefit intended? | Yes | No |
| Was the person an original party? | No | No |
| May enforce the contract? | Generally yes | Generally no |
| Must have signed the contract? | No | No |
| Rights depend on the contract? | Yes | No enforceable contractual right |
The critical difference is not whether the person benefits.
It is whether the benefit was intended to carry enforceable legal rights.
14. Third-Party Beneficiaries and Insurance Contracts
Insurance provides one of the clearest examples of contractual arrangements involving third-party rights.
Suppose a policyholder purchases life insurance and names a beneficiary.
The beneficiary may not have negotiated the policy with the insurer.
Nevertheless, the entire structure of the agreement is designed to provide a benefit to that person upon the occurrence of the specified event.
The beneficiary’s rights therefore arise through the insurance contract even though the beneficiary was not necessarily an original contracting party.
Insurance law, however, contains many specialized rules, so general third-party beneficiary principles should not be treated as the only source of rights in an insurance dispute.
15. Third-Party Beneficiaries in Settlements
Settlement agreements can also create third-party beneficiary issues.
Suppose:
A agrees to pay B $100,000 to settle a dispute, and the agreement requires B to use part of the payment to satisfy a specified obligation owed to C.
Whether C can enforce that promise may depend on whether the settlement agreement intended to give C enforceable rights.
This can become particularly important where the third party claims that a settlement was entered into specifically for the third party’s protection or benefit.
Again, the critical issue is intention.
Free Presentation
Manslaughter
Homicide without the intent that defines murder.
A short, downloadable slide deck explaining this term in depth — free to open this week, no account needed.
Open This Week's Presentation →All-Access subscribers get the entire growing library, any time — see the full catalog.
16. Third-Party Beneficiaries in Construction Contracts
Construction projects often involve multiple contractual relationships.
For example:
A property owner hires a general contractor. The general contractor hires a subcontractor. A future purchaser later claims that the subcontractor breached obligations concerning the construction.
The purchaser is not automatically a third-party beneficiary of the subcontract.
The court may need to determine:
- what the subcontract required;
- why the agreement was made;
- whether the purchaser was within the intended class of beneficiaries;
- whether the contract expressly addresses third-party rights;
- whether another legal theory applies.
The existence of a benefit alone is not enough.
17. Third-Party Beneficiary Rights and Defenses
A promisor may generally assert defenses against a third-party beneficiary that arise from the underlying contract.
Suppose Bob agrees to pay Charlie $20,000 if Alice performs a specified obligation.
Alice does not perform.
Charlie cannot necessarily enforce the payment as though Alice’s performance were irrelevant.
The beneficiary’s rights remain connected to the underlying agreement.
Similarly, if the contract is unenforceable because of a recognized contractual defense, the beneficiary’s claim may be affected.
This reflects a basic principle:
A third-party beneficiary receives contractual rights through the agreement, not independently of it.
18. Can the Promisee Also Sue?
The existence of a third-party beneficiary does not necessarily eliminate the rights of the original promisee.
Suppose Alice contracts with Bob to provide a benefit to Charlie.
Depending on the nature of the agreement and the applicable law, Alice may retain rights against Bob for breach even though Charlie also has enforcement rights.
The rights of the promisee and beneficiary may coexist.
Their precise relationship depends on the contract and the applicable legal rules.
19. Can the Beneficiary Sue the Promisee?
The third-party beneficiary doctrine primarily concerns enforcement against the promisor.
It does not automatically mean that the beneficiary has a contractual claim against every original party.
For example, if Bob promises Alice that he will pay Charlie, Charlie’s third-party beneficiary claim will ordinarily concern Bob’s failure to perform Bob’s promise.
Whether Charlie has a claim against Alice depends on a different legal basis.
This distinction is important because third-party beneficiary status does not necessarily place the beneficiary into every aspect of the original contractual relationship.
20. Can the Beneficiary Be Bound by the Contract?
Third-party beneficiary status generally concerns the acquisition of rights, not the automatic assumption of all the contractual obligations of the original parties.
A beneficiary is therefore not ordinarily transformed into a full contracting party merely because the contract benefits that person.
This preserves the distinction between:
- being an original party;
- being an intended beneficiary;
- being an incidental beneficiary.
The beneficiary may possess a right to enforce a particular promise without becoming responsible for all of the obligations undertaken by the original parties.
21. Third-Party Beneficiaries and Assignment
Third-party beneficiary rights should also be distinguished from assignment.
With an assignment:
Alice already has a contractual right and transfers that right to Charlie.
With a third-party beneficiary arrangement:
Alice and Bob create a contract intended to give Charlie a benefit.
The legal origin of Charlie’s right is therefore different.
Assignment involves the transfer of an existing contractual right.
Third-party beneficiary doctrine involves the creation of a contractual right for a non-party.
These doctrines may produce similar practical outcomes, but they should not be conflated.
22. Third-Party Beneficiaries and Novation
A third-party beneficiary should also be distinguished from a novation.
A novation substitutes a new party or obligation and releases the original obligation or party according to the terms of the new agreement.
A third-party beneficiary, by contrast, does not necessarily replace anyone.
The original contract remains in place, but the law recognizes that a non-party was intended to receive enforceable rights under it.
23. Third-Party Beneficiary Rights Under the Restatement
The Restatement (Second) of Contracts provides an important framework for modern American contract law.
Its approach generally focuses on whether the contracting parties intended to give the third party a right to performance.
This is an important development from older formal categories.
Rather than asking only whether the beneficiary was a creditor or donee beneficiary, modern analysis asks whether recognizing a right in the beneficiary is consistent with the parties’ intended contractual arrangement.
This reflects a broader movement in contract law toward examining the substance and purpose of the transaction.
24. Third-Party Beneficiaries and Freedom of Contract
Third-party beneficiary doctrine creates an interesting tension with freedom of contract.
The parties to a contract normally choose:
- whom they will contract with;
- what obligations they will undertake;
- what benefits they will confer;
- what remedies will be available.
If they intentionally create rights for a third party, however, the law may enforce those rights even though the beneficiary never personally agreed to the contract.
This is not necessarily inconsistent with freedom of contract.
The third party’s rights exist precisely because the original parties chose to create them.
The doctrine therefore can be understood as an extension of the parties’ own contractual intentions rather than an abandonment of contractual autonomy.
25. Why the Doctrine Is Useful
Third-party beneficiary doctrine provides practical flexibility.
Instead of requiring a new contract every time a transaction is designed to benefit someone else, the law can recognize rights within the existing agreement.
This is particularly useful when:
- an insurance policy benefits a named person;
- a settlement protects a third party;
- a contract is expressly made for another person’s benefit;
- a business agreement requires payment to someone outside the transaction;
- a trust-related arrangement involves contractual obligations;
- a commercial agreement deliberately protects a specified group.
The doctrine allows the law to recognize the actual structure of the transaction.
26. A Practical Example
Consider the following:
Alice owes Charlie $25,000. Alice hires Bob to perform consulting services and agrees that Bob will pay $25,000 directly to Charlie from the money Alice owes Bob.
The analysis should proceed carefully.
First: Identify the contract
The contract is between Alice and Bob.
Second: Identify Charlie’s role
Charlie is not an original contracting party.
Third: Ask whether Charlie was intended to benefit
If the payment to Charlie was a central purpose of the agreement, Charlie may be an intended beneficiary.
Fourth: Ask whether the right has vested
If Charlie has taken legally significant action in reliance on the promise or otherwise acquired enforceable rights under the governing law, vesting may matter.
Fifth: Examine the contract’s defenses and limitations
Bob may have defenses arising from the underlying agreement.
Sixth: Determine the remedy
If Bob breached an enforceable promise to pay Charlie, Charlie may have a contractual claim for the appropriate remedy.
The important point is that Charlie’s claim does not arise simply because he happened to benefit.
It arises because the contractual arrangement may have been intentionally structured to give him a legal right.
27. A Practical Analytical Framework
When analyzing a third-party beneficiary problem, ask the following questions.
Step 1: Identify the contract
What agreement allegedly creates the beneficiary’s rights?
Step 2: Identify the original parties
Who actually entered into the agreement?
Step 3: Identify the alleged beneficiary
Who is claiming rights despite not being an original party?
Step 4: Determine whether the benefit was intended
Was the contract designed to benefit this person, or did the person merely benefit incidentally?
Step 5: Examine the contract language
Does the agreement expressly identify the beneficiary or third-party rights?
Step 6: Determine whether rights have vested
Has the beneficiary’s right become enforceable under the applicable law?
Step 7: Examine contractual defenses
What defenses or limitations would apply to the underlying contractual obligation?
Step 8: Identify the remedy
What can the beneficiary actually recover or compel?
Step 9: Consider alternative legal theories
Could the claimant have rights under warranty law, tort law, statute, assignment, or another doctrine?
This method keeps third-party beneficiary analysis separate from broader questions of contractual liability.
28. The Deeper Principle
Third-party beneficiary doctrine reveals something important about the nature of contracts.
Contracts are private agreements, but private agreements can be deliberately structured to produce legal benefits for people who are not themselves signatories.
The law therefore has to balance two competing principles.
First: contractual rights should have identifiable boundaries.
Second: those boundaries should reflect the actual intentions of the contracting parties.
The third-party beneficiary doctrine reconciles these principles by recognizing rights only when the law has sufficient reason to conclude that the third party was an intended beneficiary rather than merely someone who happened to profit from the agreement.
The doctrine does not destroy privity.
It creates a carefully defined exception to its traditional limits.
Key Takeaways
- A third-party beneficiary is a non-party who may have enforceable rights because the contracting parties intended to benefit that person.
- An intended beneficiary is different from an incidental beneficiary.
- Receiving a benefit from a contract does not automatically create enforcement rights.
- The parties’ intention is central to determining beneficiary status.
- A third-party beneficiary does not normally need to sign the contract or provide consideration.
- Beneficiary rights are defined by the underlying contract.
- Vesting can determine whether the original parties remain free to modify or terminate the beneficiary’s rights.
- Contractual provisions can expressly create or exclude third-party enforcement rights.
- Third-party beneficiary status is different from assignment, delegation, and novation.
- The beneficiary may be subject to defenses arising from the underlying contract.
- Modern American contract law generally emphasizes the parties’ intended creation of enforceable rights rather than relying exclusively on older beneficiary classifications.
- A person who lacks third-party beneficiary status may still have another legal claim under tort, statute, warranty law, or another doctrine.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a third-party beneficiary?
A third-party beneficiary is someone who is not an original party to a contract but whom the contracting parties intended to benefit in a way that may give the person enforceable contractual rights.
Does a third-party beneficiary have to sign the contract?
No. An intended third-party beneficiary generally does not need to sign the agreement or provide consideration.
What is an incidental beneficiary?
An incidental beneficiary is someone who benefits from a contract without the contracting parties intending to give that person enforceable contractual rights.
Can an incidental beneficiary sue for breach of contract?
Generally no. An incidental benefit ordinarily does not create contractual enforcement rights.
When do third-party beneficiary rights vest?
The precise rules vary, but rights may vest when the beneficiary materially relies on the promise, brings an action to enforce it, manifests assent in a legally significant way, or otherwise satisfies the applicable vesting requirements.
Can the original parties cancel a third-party beneficiary’s rights?
Sometimes, particularly before the beneficiary’s rights have vested. After vesting, the ability of the original parties to modify or terminate those rights may be restricted.
Can a third-party beneficiary sue the promisor?
Yes, if the beneficiary has enforceable rights under the applicable third-party beneficiary rules.
Is a third-party beneficiary a party to the contract?
No. The beneficiary remains distinct from the original contracting parties, even though the beneficiary may have enforceable rights under the agreement.
Is a third-party beneficiary the same as an assignee?
No. An assignee acquires an existing contractual right through assignment. A third-party beneficiary acquires rights because the original contracting parties intended the contract to benefit that person.
Can a contract exclude third-party beneficiary rights?
Contracts can often expressly state that no third party has enforcement rights, subject to applicable law and any statutory or other limitations.
Conclusion
Third-party beneficiary doctrine provides one of the clearest examples of how modern contract law has moved beyond an exclusively two-party conception of contractual rights.
The traditional rule of privity remains important: people who are strangers to a contract generally cannot enforce it.
But contracts can deliberately create benefits for people who never signed them.
When the contracting parties intended a third person to receive an enforceable contractual benefit, the law may recognize that person’s rights as an intended third-party beneficiary.
The distinction between intended and incidental beneficiaries is therefore fundamental.
A person does not obtain contractual rights simply because a contract helps them. The critical question is whether the agreement was structured with the intention that the person should have a legally enforceable right.
Third-party beneficiary doctrine thus preserves the boundaries of contract law while recognizing the reality that contractual arrangements can be designed to reach beyond their original signatories.
In that sense, it is not a rejection of privity.
It is one of the principal ways in which the law defines its limits.
Daily Quiz
Constitutional Law
10 questions, new every day. See how many you get right — then come back tomorrow for a new category.
Question 1 of 10
What is the "political question doctrine"?
Some disputes — like certain foreign policy or purely internal legislative matters — are treated as committed to the political branches rather than the courts, and federal courts will decline to rule on the merits of those questions.
Question 2 of 10
What is federal "preemption" in constitutional law?
Preemption flows from the Supremacy Clause — when Congress validly legislates in a given area (expressly or through a clear intent to occupy the field), that federal law can displace conflicting or overlapping state laws in that area.
Question 3 of 10
What role does the Senate play in the federal treaty-making process?
Treaty-making is a shared power — while the President negotiates treaties, the Constitution requires Senate "advice and consent," including a two-thirds vote, before a treaty can be ratified, a significant structural check on executive foreign-policy power.
Question 4 of 10
What does the Constitution's "Appointments Clause" generally govern?
The Appointments Clause structures how key federal officials are chosen — principal officers generally require both presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, a structural check meant to require the two political branches to share responsibility for key appointments.
Question 5 of 10
What does the Constitution's "Takings Clause" (Fifth Amendment) require when the government exercises eminent domain?
The Takings Clause is the constitutional foundation for the "just compensation" requirement in eminent domain cases — government can take private property for public use, but the Constitution requires that the owner be fairly compensated for it.
Question 6 of 10
What does the Constitution's "Take Care Clause" require of the President?
The Take Care Clause is a core textual source of the President's duty to enforce federal law faithfully — it has been invoked in disputes over how much discretion the executive branch has in choosing whether and how to enforce particular laws.
Question 7 of 10
What does "equal protection" under the Fourteenth Amendment generally require?
Equal protection doesn't ban all classifications — but the justification a government needs to defend one (from a lenient "rational basis" to a demanding "strict scrutiny") depends heavily on what kind of classification is being challenged.
Question 8 of 10
What are "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech?
Government can generally regulate the logistics of speech (like requiring a permit for a large public rally) without regulating its content, as long as the restriction is content-neutral, serves a real interest, and leaves reasonable alternative ways to communicate.
Question 9 of 10
What is the President's general "removal power" over executive officials?
The scope of the President's power to remove executive officials — especially those Congress has tried to insulate through for-cause removal protections — has been a recurring and evolving area of constitutional litigation.
Question 10 of 10
What does the "Necessary and Proper Clause" (Article I) do?
Often called the "Elastic Clause," it lets Congress enact legislation reasonably connected to carrying out its other listed powers — a significant source of expanded federal legislative authority over the country's history.
Come back tomorrow for Tort Law.
Enjoyed Constitutional Law? Go deeper:
Continue with the Constitutional Law course →A quick trivia game for general legal knowledge — not legal advice, and not affiliated with any bar exam or licensing body.
Related in Contract Law
The information provided in this article ("Third-Party Beneficiary Rights in Contract Law") is for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice. Reading this content does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws vary by jurisdiction; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal matters.
Advance Your Legal Analysis
Explore our interactive decision trees, litigation pipeline builders, and procedural court simulators designed specifically for law students and practitioners.
Access Interactive Tools →
0 Comments