On December 1, Broker contracted with Collecta to sell her one of a certain type of rare coin for $12,000, delivery and payment to occur on the next March 1. To fulfill that contract, and without Collecta's knowledge, Broker contracted on January 1 to purchase for $10,000 a specimen of that type coin from Hoarder, delivery and payment to occur on February 1. The market price of such coins had unexpectedly fallen to $8,000 by February 1, when Hoarder tendered the coin and Broker repudiated. On February 25, the market in such coins suddenly reversed and had stabilized at $12,000 on March 1. Broker, however, had failed to obtain a specimen of the coin and repudiated his agreement with Collecta when she tendered the $12,000 agreed price on March 1. Later that day, after learning by chance of Broker's dealing with Collecta, Hoarder telephoned Collecta and said: "Listen, Broker probably owes me at least $2,000 in damages for refusing wrongfully to buy my coin for $10,000 on February 1 when the market was down to $8,000. But I'm in good shape in view of the market's recovery since then, and I think you ought to get after the so-and-so." If Collecta immediately sues Broker for his breach of the Broker-Hoarder contract, which of the following will the court probably decide? 
Broker wins, because Collecta, if a beneficiary at all of the Broker-Hoarder contract, was only an incidental beneficiary.  Broker wins, because as of March 1 neither Hoarder nor Collecta had sustained any damage from Broker's repudiation of both contracts.  Collecta wins, because she was an intended beneficiary of the BrokerHoarder contract, under which damages for Broker's repudiation became fixed on February 1.  Collecta wins, because she took an effective assignment of Hoarder's claim for damages against Broker when Hoarder suggested that Collecta "get after the so-and-so." 