Alice owned a condominium directly above Sam. Alice failed to take proper care of some plumbing problems, and on several occasions Alice's plumbing problems caused leaking into Sam's apartment resulting in property damage. Both Alice and Sam had signed a condominium association agreement providing that each tenant would pay for any damage caused; that the agreement could be enforced by the management of the association or, in a proper case, by an aggrieved owner; and that adherence to the agreement was required "for the benefit of the Association and any person acquiring or owning an interest in the property." The association itself refused to sue Alice in order to recover damages with which to reimburse Sam. Therefore, Sam sued Alice himself. She claimed that he had no standing to sue. Which of the following is the most likely result of the dispute if the court follows Allan v. Nersesova, the case in the text involving a similar issue?

		That Sam had standing based on the association's failure to act but that he nevertheless had no right to bring suit because he was not an intended beneficiary of the agreement between Alice and the association.
		That Sam was an intended beneficiary of the agreement between Alice and the association; that he had standing to sue; and that under the terms of the agreement, the association's failure to act gave him the right to proceed.
		That Sam was an intended beneficiary of the agreement between Alice and the association but that he had no right to sue because he nevertheless lacked standing.
		That Sam could proceed but only if he could convince the association to join the lawsuit with his.
		That the agreement between Alice and the association addressed issues involving intentional wrongdoing, such as out-of-control parties, not issues involving utilities and that Sam, therefore, could not sue.