As an exception to the rule of law of privity of contract, that only a party to a contract can sue under the contract, we have now the concept of third party beneficiaries to a contract having the right to sue under the contract under specific circumstances. In the context of the case of Carolyn Barney v. Unity Paving, Inc, et al (the lady passenger in a bus hit by a dump truck loaded with broken concrete from a road construction project on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago) discuss why the Court concluded that Carolyn Barney would not be considered an "incidental beneficiary" to the contracts between the City of Chicago and the general contractor and its subcontractor dump truck company. Why do you believe this was a just or unjust decision.