Locke was a physical education teacher and an umpire represented by the Southeast Alabama Umpires Association. The contract between the Umpires Association and the Ozark City Board of Education provided that the city would provide police protection at all games at which the Association's umpires were working. One evening, Locke was working at a high school game and no police protection was provided. At that game, a player's parent attacked him, punching him several times in the face. He subsequently sued the board for failing to provide police protection. The board argued that he was not entitled to sue because he was not a party to the contract. The trial court found that he was an unintended beneficiary and granted the board summary judgment. What do you think the outcome was on appeal? Why? Locke v. Ozark Board of Education, 970 So. 2d 1247 (Ark. 2005).