Clayton is a resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The City of Cambridge has a contract with Waterworks, Inc. Under that contract, Waterworks must supply high-pressure water and pump that water into the fire hydrants throughout Cambridge.

One night, Clayton has an incident in his kitchen, and his house begins to burn. Fortunately, though, the fine firemen of the local fire department show up to the house in plenty of time to prevent any significant damage. But there is one big problem: the only water coming from the hydrant is a slow trickle, barely more than a drip.

Without any good source of water, the firemen are unable to out the fire, and the entire house burns down. Clayton, who is now both furious and homeless, decides to sue Waterworks based on a third-party beneficiary theory. He argues that the citizens of Cambridge were the intended beneficiaries of the high-pressure water contract made between the City and Waterworks.

How should the suit come out? Should Clayton be able to collect from Waterworks for the damages he incurred from the house fire?