Question: Potential expert witnesses made an oral agreement with a plaintiff's attorney to testify on behalf of the plaintiff for $60,000. However, after receiving the money, the witnesses backed out of the agreement and said they would not testify in court or pay back the money. The witnesses claimed that the plaintiff could not sue them because their oral contract was with the attorney and not the plaintiff. Yet, the plaintiff claimed she could sue because she was a third-party beneficiary to the contract. The court made a landmark decision regarding expert witnesses and third-party beneficiary case law. What do you believe the surprising decision was in this case? What rationale supports that outcome?