What is the difference between direct and indirect benefit when it comes to contracts?

If I agree to pay you $1000 for your services in renovating my house, both you and I are receiving direct benefits from the agreement.  Your neighbor may be receiving indirect benefits, because his property value goes up when your house is renovated.  Although your neighbor is receiving indirect benefits, he is not sufficiently close to the situation to be considered a 3d party beneficiary of the contract, and thus cannot enforce it or sue for damages for its breach.   If I hire you to fix my child's teeth for $1,000, I may not get any direct benefit from the contract, but nevertheless can sue to enforce it or for damages for its breach, because I'm a party to the contract.  In that case, my child probably is sufficiently close to the contract (as he is getting a direct benefit) to be considered a third party beneficiary, and thus can also sue to enforce the contract and/or for damages for its breach. Probably more than you ever wanted to know.