District Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Fedco System, Inc.

PER CURIAM For the reasons stated in the well-reasoned opinion by Judge Bloom for the Court of Special Appeals in Dist. Moving & Stg. v. Gardiner & Gardiner, 63 Md.App. 96, 492 A.2d 319 (1985), the judgments are affirmed.1 JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS. Footnotes [1] Additional support for the intermediate appellate court’s determination that the third-party beneficiary was bound by the contract arbitration clause in this case may be found in International Bro. of E. W., L.U. 308 v. Dave’s Elec. Serv., Inc., 382 F.Supp. 427, 429-30 (M.D.Fla. 1974); State v. Osborne, 607 P.2d 369, 371 (Alaska 1980); Zac Smith & Co. v. Moonspinner Condominium Ass’n, 472 So.2d 1324, 1324-25 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985); Rae v. Air-Speed, Inc., 386 Mass. 187, 435 N.E.2d 628, 633 (1982); Syndor & Hundley, Inc. v. Wilson Trucking Corp., 213 Va. 704, 194 S.E.2d 733, 736 (1973); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 309(3) (1981); 17 Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 315 (1964 & Supp.1985).