Richard Brumitt, owner of Southway Systems, Inc., agreed to sell his stock in the company to DTSG, Ltd. DTSG’s owner, Don Oprea, contacted Tim Duffy, president of First Bank’s Small Business Administration loans division, to secure financing for the deal. Opera urgently expressed to Duffy that he needed to close on the loan by the year’s end because Brumitt had pending offers from other interested buyers. Duffy assured Oprea that the loan could be closed by then. However, things did not go as planned. For over fourteen months, First Bank scheduled and postponed numerous closings. During this time, Duffy continued to promise Oprea that the loan would go through, and Southway continued to sink. Opera finally sought financing elsewhere, but he never obtained a loan nor acquired Southway. By the time of the trial, Southway had already failed. Brumitt attempted to sue First Bank as a third-party beneficiary to the agreement between First Bank and DTSG. As evidence of his third-party beneficiary status, Brumitt submitted the three loan commitment letters executed by DTSG and First Bank. First Bank pointed out, however, that the language of the letters was unambiguous and did not clearly express the parties’ intent to make Brumitt a third-party beneficiary. Indeed, the letters did not mention Brumitt at all. Does Brumitt have standing to sue as a third-party beneficiary? How do you think the court ruled on the issue?