Q 13.1) The Phillies, L.P., the owner of the Philadelphia Phillies professional baseball team (Phillies), decided to build a new baseball stadium called Citizens Bank Park (the Project). The Phillies entered into a contract (Agreement) with Driscoll/Hunt Joint Venture (DH) whereby DH would act as the Construction Manager of the Project. In that capacity, DH entered into multiple contracts with subcontractors to provide material and services in constructing the Project. One such subcontractor was Ramos/Carson/DePaul, Joint Venture (RCD), which was hired to install concrete foundations for the Project. The Project was beset with numerous delays and disruptions, for which RCD claimed it was owed additional compensation from DH and the Phillies. Subcontractor RCD sued the Phillies to recover the alleged compensation, alleging it was an intended beneficiary to the Phillies–DH Agreement, thus giving it rights to recover compensation from the Phillies. The Phillies argued that RCD was merely an incidental beneficiary to the Phillies–DH Agreement and could not recover compensation from the Phillies. Was RCD an intended or an incidental beneficiary of the Phillies—DH Agreement? Ramos/Carson/DePaul, a Joint Venture v. The Phillies, L.P., Web 2006 Phil. Ct. Com. PL Lexis 397 (Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania)13.2) Eugene H. Emmick hired L. S. Hamm, an attorney, to draft his will. The will named Robert Lucas and others (Lucas) as beneficiaries. When Emmick died, it was discovered that the will was improperly drafted, violated state law, and was therefore ineffective. Emmick’s estate was transferred pursuant to the state’s intestate laws. Lucas did not receive the $75,000 he would have otherwise received had the will been valid. Lucas sued Hamm for breach of the Emmick–Hamm contract to recover what he would have received under the will. Who wins? Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal.2d 583, 364 P.2d 685, 15 Cal.Rptr. 821, Web 1961 Cal. Lexis 321 (Supreme Court of California)