of the building.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs do not explain Hammes was to benefit from the space lease. The Court concludes that any benefit Hammes was to receive under the ground lease and space lease was purely incidental. Had the project come to fruition, Hammes presumably only stood to gain from the space lease insofar as rent that its subsidiary — HC—received would ultimately flow through to Hammes. But the mere fact that a literal interpretation of the space lease would have necessarily resulted in some benefit to Hammes does not entitle Hammes to enforce the agreement where, as here, the record is devoid of any admissible evidence that the parties intended Hammes to benefit from the space lease. See, e.g., Dayton Dev. Co. v. Gilman Fin. Servs., Inc., 419 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, although Hammes contends that
holding defendant assumed risk that third party would consent to search of storage locker where defendant instructed third party to rent locker under third partys name and allowed third party to keep possession of lease papers and to occasionally retain the keys holding that a third party holding legal title to property is a necessary party in an action for equitable distribution holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant holding under minnesota law that third party was not intended beneficiary merely because contract for sale of fixtures required title to pass from seller through third party to buyer