Victim, injured by Driver in an auto accident, employed attorney First to represent him in the matter. Victim was chronically insolvent and expressed doubt whether he could promptly get necessary medical treatment. Accordingly, First wrote into their contract his promise to Victim "to pay from any settlement with Driver compensation to any physician who provides professional services for Victim's injuries." The contract also provided that First's duties were "nonassignable." First immediately filed suit against Driver. Victim then sought and received medical treatment, reasonably valued at $1,000, from Doctor, After receiving a bill from Doctor for $1,000, Victim immediately wrote Doctor explaining that he was unable to pay and enclosing a copy of his contract with First. Victim then asked First about payment of this bill, but First requested a release from their employment contract, stating that he would like to refer Victim's claim to attorney Second and that Second was willing to represent Victim in the pending lawsuit. Victim wrote a letter to First releasing him from their contract and agreeing to Second's representation. A copy of this letter was sent to Doctor. Second subsequently promised First to represent Victim and soon negotiated a settlement of Victim's claim against Driver which netted $1,000, all of which was paid by Victim to creditors other than Doctor. Victim remains insolvent but failed to inform Doctor of First's promise. "In an action by Doctor against Second, Second is most likely to argue on these facts that
Second made only a gratuitous promise to First. at the time Second promised to represent Victim, Doctor was only a member of an unidentified class of beneficiaries.  there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Doctor was either a creditor or donee beneficiary of Second's promise to First. there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Doctor substantially changed his position in reliance on Second's promise
Question: Victim, injured by Driver in an auto accident, employed attorney First to represent him in the matter. Victim was chronically insolvent and expressed doubt whether he could promptly get necessary medical treatment. Accordingly, First wrote into their contract his promise to Victim "to pay from any settlement with Driver compensation to any physician who provides professional services for Victim's injuries." The contract also provided that First's duties were "nonassignable." First immediately filed suit against Driver. Victim then sought and received medical treatment, reasonably valued at $1,000, from Doctor, After receiving a bill from Doctor for $1,000, Victim immediately wrote Doctor explaining that he was unable to pay and enclosing a copy of his contract with First. Victim then asked First about payment of this bill, but First requested a release from their employment contract, stating that he would like to refer Victim's claim to attorney Second and that Second was willing to represent Victim in the pending lawsuit. Victim wrote a letter to First releasing him from their contract and agreeing to Second's representation. A copy of this letter was sent to Doctor. Second subsequently promised First to represent Victim and soon negotiated a settlement of Victim's claim against Driver which netted $1,000, all of which was paid by Victim to creditors other than Doctor. Victim remains insolvent but failed to inform Doctor of First's promise. "In an action by Doctor against Second, Second is most likely to argue on these facts that
A. Second made only a gratuitous promise to First.
B. at the time Second promised to represent Victim, Doctor was only a member of an unidentified class of beneficiaries. 
C. there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Doctor was either a creditor or donee beneficiary of Second's promise to First.
D. there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Doctor substantially changed his position in reliance on Second's promise
Answer: