
    508 A.2d 487
    DISTRICT MOVING & STORAGE, INC. v. FEDCO SYSTEMS, INC. and Gardiner & Gardiner, Inc.
    No. 106,
    Sept. Term, 1985.
    Court of Appeals of Maryland.
    May 21, 1986.
    Browne L. Kooken of Upper Marlboro, for appellant.
    
      Steven M. Levine (Paul T. Cuzmanes and Wilson Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, on brief, for Fedco Systems, Inc., part of appellee and Gail A. Nettleton (Sadur & Pelland, on brief for Gardiner & Gardiner, Inc., other part of appellee) all of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
    Argued before MURPHY, C.J., SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.
   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.

JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS. 
      
      . 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).
     