This translates the whole phrase, "le bénéficiaire d’une stipulation pour autrui parfaite." This is the English (US, perhaps also UK) legal term. If you're talking about the beneficiary, as The Misha's original text is, this is the term you use. If you're talking about the contract provision itself, you would say "the third-party beneficiary provision" or words to that effect.

Definition of the French legal term: https://www.dictionnaire-juridique.com/definition/stipulatio...

Definitions of the English legal term term: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/third-party_beneficiary

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/third-party-beneficiary... (longer explanation)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2018-12-15 14:24:55 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

PS: apparently this term is new to British law because until 1999, British law did not give any right to third-party beneficiaries to enforce contracts that others had entered into for their benefit (see link). The right did not exist, and therefore the legal term did not exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts_(Rights_of_Third_Par...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2018-12-15 14:30:14 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

PPS: the French distinction between "parfaite" and not parfaite seems to be best expressed by the US term "intended." In the US, if a contract between A and B names a third party (C) and provides that C is to receive something from A or B, then C is an "intended" beneficiary and has the right to enforce the contract in court. On the other hand, if the contract between A and B just happens to also benefit C, but doesn't name C, then C is only an incidental beneficiary and has no right to enforce it in court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_beneficiary#Intend...

So Misha, if you want, translate this as "intended third-party beneficiary." But in US legal English it feels a bit redundant because technically, a third-party beneficiary is by definition an intended beneficiary. If C isn't named or referred to in the contract, and the contract wasn't intended to benefit C but just happened to be good for C, the courts will not refer to C as a third-party beneficiary.

http://www.arcavocats.ch/fr/chroniques/la-stipulation-pour-a...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_beneficiary#Vestin...
"Once the beneficiary's rights have vested, the original parties to the contract are both bound to perform the contract. Any efforts by the promisor or the promisee to rescind or modify the contract at that point are void. Indeed, if the promisee changed his mind and offered to pay the promisor money not to perform, the third party could sue the promisee for tortious interference with the third party's contract rights.

"There are four ways to determine whether the third party beneficiary's rights have vested:

If the beneficiary knows of and has detrimentally relied on the rights created;
If the beneficiary expressly assented to the contract at the request of one of the parties;
If the beneficiary files a lawsuit to enforce the contract; or
If the beneficiary's rights vest pursuant to an express term in the contract providing for such vesting."

See a discussion of the differences between codified legal systems that generally have allowed such rights and common law systems that traditionally have not in www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/files/2014/6850/9379/Review_of_Contra...





--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 hrs (2018-12-15 12:36:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Also, see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/31/introduction/en...
and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts_(Rights_of_Third_Par...
"The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (c 31) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that significantly reformed the common law doctrine of privity and "thereby [removed] one of the most universally disliked and criticised blots on the legal landscape".[2] The second rule of the Doctrine of Privity, that a third party could not enforce a contract for which he had not provided consideration, had been widely criticised by lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary. Proposals for reform via an act of Parliament were first made in 1937 by the Law Revision Committee in their Sixth Interim Report. No further action was taken by the government until the 1990s, when the Law Commission proposed a new draft bill in 1991, and presented their final report in 1996. The bill was introduced to the House of Lords in December 1998, and moved to the House of Commons on 14 June 1999. It received the Royal Assent on 11 November 1999, coming into force immediately as the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

"The act allows third parties to enforce terms of contracts that benefit them in some way, or which the contract allows them to enforce. It also grants them access to a range of remedies if the terms are breached. The act also limits the ways in which a contract can be changed without the permission of an involved third party. At the same time, it provides protection for the promisor and promisee in situations where there is a dispute with the third party, and allows parties to a contract to specifically exclude the protection afforded by the Act if they want to limit the involvement of third parties."

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2018-12-15 14:40:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Note that the translation has to reflect the fact that this is about French law. So, it would be wrong to fail to spell out the element that makes the difference between an ordinary "stipulation pour autrui" and a "stipulation pour autrui parfaite". Not all third party beneficiaries benefit from that provision, either in France or in English-speaking jurisdictions.