Finch v. Rhode Island Grocers Assn

11 Citing cases

  1. Verizon Connected Solutions v. Starlight Commun. Holding

    CA 02-201ML (D.R.I. Jan. 6, 2004)

    The Rhode Island Supreme Court recognizes the general rule that only intended, and not incidental, third party beneficiaries can maintain an action for damages resulting from a breach of a contract between two other contracting parties. See Davis v. New England Pest Control Co., 576 A.2d 1240, 1242 (R.I. 1990); Finch v. Rhode Island Grocers Association, 93 R.I. 323, 329-30, 175 A.2d 177, 184 (1961). This rule holds true even where the duty imposed by the contract relates to matters which have a direct bearing upon the damages sustained.

  2. Forcier v. Cardello

    173 B.R. 973 (D.R.I. 1994)   Cited 19 times

    The Rhode Island Supreme Court recognizes the general rule that only intended, and not incidental, third party beneficiaries can maintain an action for damages resulting from a breach of a contract between two other contracting parties. See Davis v. New England Pest Control Co., 576 A.2d 1240, 1242 (R.I. 1990); Finch v. Rhode Island Grocers Association, 93 R.I. 323, 329-30, 175 A.2d 177, 184 (1961). This rule holds true even where the duty imposed by the contract relates to matters which have a direct bearing upon the damages sustained.

  3. Sangermano v. Roger Williams Realty Corp.

    C.A. No. 06-6628 (R.I. Super. Jul. 22, 2009)   Cited 2 times

    In the past, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has looked to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts for guidance in determining the rights and status of third party beneficiaries. See e.g., Finch v. Rhode Island Grocers Assn., 175 A.2d 177, 181 (1961). The Restatement basically requires that the parties directly and unequivocally manifest intent to benefit a third party in order for that third party to be considered an intended beneficiary.

  4. Barnstead Broadcasting Corp. v. Offshore Broadcasting Corp.

    886 F. Supp. 874 (D.D.C. 1995)   Cited 13 times

    The Rhode Island Supreme Court recognizes the general rule that only intended third party beneficiaries may maintain an action for damages resulting from a breach of contract between two other contracting parties. See Davis v. New England Pest Control Co., 576 A.2d 1240, 1242 (R.I. 1990); Finch v. Rhode Island Grocers Ass'n, 93 R.I. 323, 175 A.2d 177 (1961) (looking to Restatement (Second) of Contracts to determine the rights and status of third party beneficiaries). Incidental third party beneficiaries of a contract do not have a right to recover on the contract in the event of a breach.

  5. Wilkey v. Wed Portsmouth One, LLC

    C. A. NC-2021-0352 (R.I. Super. May. 18, 2022)

    Forcier v. Cardello, 173 B.R. 973, 984 (D.R.I. 1994); Davis v. NewEngland Pest Control Co., 576 A.2d 1240, 1242 (R.I. 1990); Finch v. R.I. Grocers Association, 93 R.I. 323, 329-30, 175 A.2d 177, 184 (1961). See also State of R.I. Department of Corrections v.ADP Marshall, Inc., No. Civ. A PB99-4704, 2004 WL 877560, at *7 (R.I. Super. Mar. 29, 2004).

  6. Caparco v. Lefkowitz, Garfinkel, Champi & Derienzo, Inc.

    C.A. No. PC 13-1484 (R.I. Super. Aug. 21, 2015)

    To be an intended beneficiary, as defined in Section 302 of Restatement (Second) Contracts, the parties must directly and unequivocally intend that the promisee give the third party the benefit of the intended promise. See Forcier v. Cardello, 173 B.R. 973, 985 (D.R.I. 1994) (citing Finch v. R.I. Grocers Ass'n., 93 R.I. 323, 330, 175 A.2d 177, 180 (1961) for support that Rhode Island courts look to Restatement (Second) Contracts to determine rights and status of third-party beneficiaries). If a third party is not an intended beneficiary, he or she is an incidental beneficiary.

  7. 802 Partners, LLC v. Behan Bros., Inc.

    C.A. No. NM 10-526 (R.I. Super. Nov. 20, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    "[O]nly intended, and not incidental, third party beneficiaries can maintain an action for damages resulting from a breach of contract between two other contracting parties." Forcier v. Cardello, 173 B.R. 973, 984-85 (D.R.I. 1994) (finding that a "promissor's mere awareness that someone other than the promisee may derive a benefit from the promissor's performance under the contract is insufficient to cloak that third party with the mantle of intended beneficiary, " and that "the parties directly and unequivocally intend to benefit a third party in order for that third party to be considered an intended beneficiary") (citing Davis v. New England Pest Control Co., 576 A.2d 1240, 1242 (R.I. 1990)); Finch v. Rhode Island Grocers Ass'n, 93 R.I. 323, 329–30 (1961). It is well established that when one party contracts with another "to do some act for the benefit of a third, " the third party "who would enjoy the benefits[ ] may maintain an action for the breach" of that contract. Davis, 576 A.2d at 1242 (citing Rae v. Air-Speed, Inc., 386 Mass. 187, 195 (1982) (citing Brewer v. Dyer, 7 Cush. 337, 340 (1851))) (internal quotations omitted).

  8. STATE v. JUA

    No. 03-0743 (R.I. Super. Jun. 7, 2005)

    Rhode Island follows the Restatement (Second) of Contracts rule concerning third party beneficiaries, which requires that the parties directly and unequivocally intend to benefit a third party in order for that third party to be considered an intended beneficiary. Finch v. Rhode Island Grocers Assn., 93 R.I. 323, 330, 175 A.2d 177, 181 (1961). The evidence before the Court clearly demonstrates that neither Dr. O'Brien nor JUA directly and unequivocally intended to benefit the Plaintiff.

  9. STATE v. ADP MARSHALL, INC.

    C.A. No.: PB99-4704 (R.I. Super. Mar. 29, 2004)

    The law in Rhode Island is well-settled that "only intended, and not incidental, third party beneficiaries can maintain an action for damages resulting from a breach of a contract between two other contracting parties." Forcier v. Cardello, 173 B.R. 973, 984 (D.R.I. 1994); Davis v. New England Pest Control Co., 576 A.2d 1240, 1242 (R.I. 1990); Finch v. R.I. Grocers Ass'n, 175 A.2d 177, 184, 93 R.I. 323, 329-30 (1961). "This rule holds true even where the duty imposed by the contract relates to matters which have a direct bearing upon the damages sustained."Forcier, 173 B.R. at 985.

  10. Opinion No. JC-0174

    Opinion No. JC-0174 (Ops. Tex. Atty. Gen. Feb. 2, 2000)

    In Rhode Island, a drawing for a door prize at a food exhibition was held not to be a lottery where the only consideration required to participate was to attend as a spectator and fill out a card. See Finch v. Rhode Island Grocers Ass'n, 175 A.2d 177 (R.I. 1961). And in People v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc., 202 N.E.2d 473 (Ill. 1964), the Supreme Court of Illinois considered a supermarket game called "split the dollar."