97 S.Ct. 2490. The Supreme Court noted: “The litigation before us raises no question regarding the liability of the United States or the responsibilities of the United States under the contracts.” Id. at 28-29, 97 S.Ct. 2490. The Court further stated “the resolution of [plaintiffs’] breach-of-contract claim against [the defendant] will have no effect upon the United State or its Treasury.” Id. at 29, 97 S.Ct. 2490. Likewise, the resolution of Plaintiffs claim against the City of Detroit and the DHC raises no question regarding the liability of the United States or the responsibilities of the United States under the ACC. Plaintiff does not name the United States as a party and its rights under the ACC will not be affected. Cf. Holbrook v. Pitt, 643 F.2d 1261, 1270 n. 16 (7th Cir. 1981) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Michigan law will apply to
holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case holding that the thirdparty beneficiary theory did not apply recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states holding that federal common law applied to thirdparty beneficiary claim by tenants of section 8 housing because federal agency was a party to the action and outcome of the case directly affected financial obligations of the united states recognizing common law cause of action as thirdparty beneficiary