~~we respectfully disagree with that it~ter~recation of Milford's case. First, nowhere in the jsa~gmen~ is there a suggestion ti~at the court was enjoining the coia~pai~y on the basis that it was, or m ust be treated as; a party to she service contract. Second, slily such suggestion wo~aid ha~~e i~een absurd. The coynparty was ~~oi incorporated u1~til sbn~~ three }ears often' et~e making of the serF~ice con~ract