Final answer:
In a state that recognizes the near-privity rule, Big Bank can sue Vernon for negligence based on the duty of care owed to them, even without a contract. The near-privity rule allows third parties to bring a negligence claim if they can establish a duty of care. The correct option is A.
Step-by-step explanation:
In a state that recognizes the near-privity rule, Big Bank can sue Vernon for negligence. The near-privity rule allows a third party, who is not in direct contractual privity with the defendant, to bring a negligence claim if they can establish a duty of care owed to them by the defendant. Even without a contract between Big Bank and Vernon, Big Bank may still have a valid claim based on the near-privity rule.
Option 1, which states that Vernon breached the trust that Claus had placed in him, may not be a valid argument as it does not directly address the near-privity rule. Option 2, stating that there was no contract between Big Bank and Vernon, is not relevant as the near-privity rule allows for a claim to be brought even without a contract.
Option 3, stating that Big Bank was an actually named third party, may support Big Bank's claim as being an identified party could strengthen the argument for establishing a duty of care. Option 4, stating that Vernon does not guarantee the collection of Big's loans, is not applicable to the near-privity rule and does not address the negligence claim.