A potential expert witness made an oral agreement with a plaintiff's attorney to testify on behalf of the plaintiff for $60,000 . However, after receiving the money the witness backed out and would not testify or pay back the money. The witness claimed that the plaintiff could not sue them because the oral contract was with the lawyer, not the plaintiff. Yet, the plaintiff claimed that she was a 3rd party beneficiary to the contract. The court made a landmark decision regarding expert witness and 3rd party beneficiary case law. What do you think the surprising decision was in this case? Why do you think that?