win because Hark and Third were not in privity of contract
Explanation:
Based on the scenario being described within the question it can be said that the if Third sues Hark, Hark will win because Hark and Third were not in privity of contract. This refers to a relationship between the various parties of a contract which allows them to sue each other but does not allow a third party to sue them. Which is the case in this scenario.
It is a claim of value because the sentence is passing a judgement on what is morally wrong to do, in this case to fail to vote, and implicitly what is right to do, in this case to vote.