Task: Text Completion
Input (English): (because the grounds specified therein for doing so did not exist in this case) and in remanding the case for a rehearing under § 10-3-13 (because “the time within which the agreement required the award to be made” had expired in this case, and, therefore, the court lacked the ability to direct a rehearing by the arbitrators under § 10-3-13), such errors were harmless because the court nevertheless had the power to seek a clarification of the award under § 10-3-14 without any need for a rehearing and, thus, without regard to the expiration of any applicable period for obtaining a rehearing. Moreover, this Court can affirm a Superior Court judgment for different reasons than those relied upon by the trial justice. Levine v. Bess Eaton Donut Flour Co., 705 A.2d 980, 984 (R.I.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding an appellate court is not limited to the grounds offered by the trial court in support of its decision and may affirm on any ground on which additional factual findings are not required (B) holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds (C) holding that the supreme court can affirm a trial justices decision on grounds other than those stated by the trial justice (D) recognizing that this court may affirm summary judgment on grounds other than those relied upon by the motion justice (E) holding we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even those not relied upon by the district court
Output (English): (C)