Which of the following was the result in the case in the text Wesley Locke v.Ozark City Board of Education,in which an umpire was injured by an angry parent and sued,claiming that he was an intended third-party beneficiary of a contract between defending board of education and the Alabama High School Athletic Association concerning police protection which the umpire claimed was required but not provided?
A)The case was remanded for trial on the issue of whether adequate police protection was provided in view of the fact that the plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary to the contract between the school board and the athletic association.
B)The umpire won as a matter of law because although he was not an intended third-party beneficiary to the contract between the defending school board and the athletic association,the defendant had an absolute nondelegable duty to provide protection ensuring that no one was hurt.
C)The defending school board won as a matter of law because the umpire was not an intended third-party beneficiary to the contract.
D)The umpire won as a matter of law because he was an intended third-party beneficiary to the contract between the defending school board and the athletic association,and the defendant had an absolute nondelegable duty to provide protection ensuring that no one was hurt.
E)The defending school board won as a matter of law because although the umpire was an intended third-party beneficiary to the contract,only the athletic association could proceed with a lawsuit.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)The state supreme court found that the plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on the issue of whether the board had provided adequate protection at the game.
B)The state supreme court found that the plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on the issue of whether the board had provided adequate protection at the game.
C)The state supreme court found that the plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on the issue of whether the board had provided adequate protection at the game.
D)The state supreme court found that the plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on the issue of whether the board had provided adequate protection at the game.
E)The state supreme court found that the plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on the issue of whether the board had provided adequate protection at the game.

Which of the Following Was the Result in the Case